HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-02-04 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 4, 2004
February 6, 2004
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
Call to Order.
Meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m., by the
Chairman. Ali BOS members were present. Also
present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne
Cilimberg and Georgina Smith.
4. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
· There was no one.
5. Presentation: Certificates of Appreciation.
· Certificate of Appreciation presented to Karen
Powell for serving on the Board of Social Services.
6.2. Request to participate in FY 2004-05 VDOT
Revenue Sharing Program.
· INDICATED their intentions to participate in both the
Revenue Shadng Program and the Supplemental
Revenue Shadng Program for FY2004-05.
6.3. Monterey Farm Road Name Change Request.
· APPROVED the new read name as requested and
granted staff the authority to coordinate/implement
the change.
6.4. Request donation of surplus PC hardware to
Charlottesville/Albemarle Boys and Gids Club.
· APPROVED the donation of the PC hardware, to
the Charlottesville/Albemarle Boys and Gids Club.
6.5. Health Department request use of FY 2003 local
carry-over funds for FY 2004 budget shortfall.
· APPROVED.
6.6. Appropriation: Democratic Presidential Pdmary
Election, $34,940 (Form #2004058).
· APPROVED appropriation ~2004058, in the amount
of $34,940, for the Democratic Presidential Pdmary
election:
6.7. Route 20 North Sidewalk Installation Project
Request to purchase portions TMP 78-58K and
78-58G1.
· APPROVED the purchase of the Wynne and Dorrier
Road frontage parcels and AUTHORIZED the
County Executive to execute the Purchase
Agreements and Deeds on the County's behalf.
7a. Update on Route 795 (Blenheim Road).
Jim Bryan
· An update was provided to the Board along with
public comments.
Lindsay Dottier
· Informed the public that they would have a chance
to make comments on Route 795 at the February 11
Board meeting.
7b. Transportation Maffers not Listed on the Agenda.
ASSIGNMENT
Clerk: Prepare letter for Chairman's signature to go to
VDOT indicating intent and provide copies to Jim Bryan
and Planning,
Tex Weaver. Proceed as directed.
Michael Culp: Proceed as directed.
Clerk: Forward letter to Dr. McLeod informing her of the
approval.
Clerk: Forward signed appropriation form to Melvin
Breeden and copy appropriate individuals.
County Attomey: Proceed as directed and provide Clerk
with copy of the signed documents for file.
Clerk: Forward comments to Jim Bryan.
-Page 1-
Sally Thomas
· Mentioned the pot holes on Route 250 west.
8. Overview of Status of Rivan na Authorities projects,
Michael Gaffney, Chair, RWSA/RSWA.
RECEIVED.
Charlottesville-Albemarle Commission on Children
and Families (CCF) Report on the Comprehensive
Services Act - Cost Containment Subcommittee
Report, Paul McVVhinney.
APPROVED the report and it's recommendation.
Clerk: Schedule additional time for Mr. Gaffney to
complete his presentation.
10. PVCC Annual Report, Dr. Frank Friedman.
· RECEIVED.
11. Board to Board Presentation, School Board
Chairman.
· RECEIVED.
12. Recreational Needs Assessment - Phase 1 Report,
Pat Mullaney.
· RECEIVED.
13. Strategic Plan Quarterly Report.
· RECEIVED.
14. Presentation: Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003, Ed
Koonce andJack Farmer.
· RECEIVED.
15. Closed Session: Personnel Matters.
· At 12:35 p.m., the Board went into closed session.
16. Certify Closed Session.
· At 3:10 p.m., the Board reconvened into open
session
~17. Clerk: Prepare appointment letters, update Boards and
Appointments.
APPOINTED Marcia Joseph to the Planning
Commission as the At- Large member, with said
term to expire December 31, 2005.
· APPONITED Alice Fitch to the Equalization Board
as the representative of the Samuel Miller District,
with said term to expire December 31,2004.
18. Community Development Block Grant. To
provide information on the availability of Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for
housing and community development needs in the
County.
· SET the public hearing for, March 3, 3004 for
discussion of any proposed applications for
Community Development Block Grant.
19. CPA-2003-003. Affordable Housinq Policy.
Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comp
Plan to include an affordable housing policy as a
new section of the Plan & to amend other sections
of the Plan to reflect this policy.
· APPROVED CPA-2003-003, by a vote of 4:2, the
proposed Affordable Housing Policy and related text
amendments to the Corn prehensive Plan.
20. Second Quarter Financial Report.
Commissions book and notify appropriate persons.
Clerk: Advertise the public headng. (Note: Hearing has
been re, scheduled for Apdl 7~).
-Page 2-
ACCEPTED the Second Quarter Financial Report
for FY03/04.
OMB: Proceed as directed.
Update on FY 2005 Revenue projections and
budget guidance.
ACCEPTED the updated FY05 Revenue
Projections and APPROVED the revised allocation
of the increased local tax revenues between
General Government and the School Division.
22. Presentation: Southern Urban Area "B" Study
Update.
· MOVEDto March 3, 2004 Board meeting.
23. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda.
Sally Thomas
· Reminded Board members of a meeting to be held
at the Holiday Inn on the next phase of the
consultants report on Route 29 North.
24. Adjourn,
· The meeting was adjourned at 4:45
/gas
-Page 3-
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Revenue Sharing Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request by the County to participate in FY 2004-05 VDOT
Revenue Sharing Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs.,Tucker, Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
VDOT's Revenue Sharing Program provides an opportunity for the County to receive up to an additional $500,000 for road
improvements in each fiscal year. The program requires a dollar-for-dollar match by the County, resulting in a total
commitment of up to $1,000,000 towards mprovements to the local road system in each fiscal year. The County's match is
allocated in its Capital Improvements Program (CIP) which is currently programming $450,000 for revenue sharing in FY
2004-05. The Revenue Sharing Program enables the County to better implement the Priority List of Road Improvements
approved by the Board by providing an additional infusion of funds which can accelerate the planning and construction of
roads projects on the list. The County has participated in this program since 1988.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
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.
DISCUSSION:
The County must formally request participation in the FY 2004-05 program by March 1, 2004. Attached is a draft letter of
intent to participate in the program. VDOT has identified major reconstruction of Proffit Road in the Six Year Secondary Road
Plan for Revenue Sharing funds in FY 2004-05. This project is also scheduled to receive revenue sharing in FY 2005-06.
Additionally, VDOT has requested that the County indicate its intent to participate in the Supplemental Revenue Sharing
Program for FY 2004-05. The attached letter also indicates the County's intent to participate in this program. Funds for this
Supplemental round come from unused allocations from the previous fiscal year (FY 2003-04). VDOT will not know the
specific additional amount available to participating localities until December, 2004.
The combined requests for participation in the FY2005-05 Revenue Sharing Program and Supplemental Revenue Sharing
Program could potentially call for a County match in excess of the $450,000 currently budgeted in the CIP for FY 2004-05.
However, historically funds available from VDOT for the annual program and supplemental funding have not always
exceeded $450,000. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that the County should indicate its intent to fully participate in both the FY
2004-05 Revenue Sharing and the Supplemental Revenue Shadng Programs. This wil provide the opportunity to receive the
maximum additional infusion of funds towards eligible trans Dortation projects, many of which have experienced significant
delays due to VDOT funding constraints in the Six Year Secondary and Primary Road Construction Programs. Indicating the
County's intent at this time does not commit the County to participate in the two programs beyond the $450,000 programmed
in the CIP in FY 2004-05, leaving that decision to the Board once the grants are awarded by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the County indicate its intent to participate in both the Revenue Sharing Program and the Supplemental
Revenue Sharing program in FY2004-05 through the attached letter.
04.008
March 1, 2004
County Primary and Secondary Road Fund
(Revenue Sharing Program)
Code Of Virginia, Section 33.1-75-1
Fiscal Year 2004-05
County of Albemarle
Mr. Michael A. Estes, P.E,
Local Assistance Division
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219
Dear Mr. Estes:
The County of Albemarle, Virginia, indicates by this letter its official intent to participate
in the initial "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 2004-05. The County will provide up to
$500,000 total for these programs, to be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from funds of the
State of Virginia. The County indicates its intent to participate in the Supplemental Revenue
Sharing Program based on the availability of funds.
The County worked with its Resident Engineer, and developed the attached prioritized
list of eligible items of work recommended to be undertaken with these funds. The County also
understands that the program will be reduced on a pro rata basis if requests exceed available
funds.
Sincerely,
Mr. Lindsay Dorrier
Chairman Board of Supervisors
Attachment (Priority listing of project)
Cc: Resident Engineer
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Monterey Farm Road Name Change
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Road Name Change Request
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Weaver
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes . ~/
Pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albemarle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manual, road name
change requests may be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for approval upon validation of the following:
Landowners of more than fifty (50) percent of the parcels served by the road in question have signed a petition in favor of
a common road name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent with other road name guidelines (not a
duplicate name, etc.) outlined in the Manual.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
3.1 Make the County a safe and healthy community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play.
DISCUSSION:
Request to change the road name of Monterey Farm to Memory Lane at the request of the sole landowner (see attached
letter). The landowner will be responsible, for costs associated with new signage. A map indicating the location of the
road is also attached. This change meets the above criteria for road name changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the new road name as requested and grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the above referenced
change.
04.006
26-0~-04P12:16 RCVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
PC Hardware Donation for Charlottesville/Albemarle
Boys and Girls Club
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request a donation of listed, used surplus County
PC hardware to the Boys and Girls Club
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Tucker, White, Culp, Davis
LINK TO ATTACHMENT{S):
ATTACHMENT A
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION:
CONSENTAGENDA:
ACTION: Yes
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
A representative from UVa who is donating technical expertise and time to the local Boys and Girls Club as part of a
United Way "Day of Cadng" initiative has requested the County to assist in a project to upgrade technology resources
available to the Club. The children use personal computers (PCs) there to learn and to have fun, but are very limited in
their ability to print. The requested donation of surplus County PC hardware would add another printer and would
enable them to network the PCs to the printer so more children can utilize the printer by printing directly from their PCs.
The County has surplus PC hardware, itemized on the attached list, that would help them meet this goal. This property
would be used for furthering the skills of children who utilize the Boys and Girls Club facility.
Virginia Code Section 15.2-953 allows a county to make "appropriations of public funds, of personal property, or any
real estate to....any charitable institution or association, located within their respective limits or outside of their limits if
such institution or association provides services to residents of the locality". The Boys and Girls Club is a non-profit
charitable organization located in the City of Charlottesville that provides services to Albemarle County residents.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
The donation of surplus PC hardware supports the strategic plan:
Strategic Direction: 3 - Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Citizens and specifically Goal 3.3 -
Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing the enhance the
factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County. Donating surplus PC Hardware to charitable organizations
will help them perform their functions and thereby enhance our quality of life.
DISCUSSION:
Staff believes that this is an appropriate disposition of this property that would achieve the best public benefit. As relatively
outdated technology, this hardware would otherwise not go into our School system, but would be auctioned off to the
public at a minimal value.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the donation of the PC hardware, itemized in Attachment A, to the
Charlottesville/Albemarle Boys and Girls Club.
04.014
28-01-04A10:31 RL
PC Hardware Donation for Charlottesville/Albemarle Boys and Girls Club
Attachment A
Item Description Item Serial Number Number Estimated Value
Epson Stylus Color 600 Printer AAA1257021 1 $5.00
Printer Cable N/A 1 $1.00
3Com FMS 12 port Ethernet Hub 0201/7gsr101951 1 $1.00
Ethernet Cables N/A 8 $5.00
TOTAL $14.0O
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Health Department Carry/Over Request
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval for the Health Department to use
FY03 surplus local funds to offset anticipated budget
shortfall in their FY04 budget.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Breeden
LINK TO ATTACHMENT(S):
LEGAL REVIEW: no
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: no
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The year-end Health Department settlement process for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Health Department resulted in a
$17,119 surplus to be potentially returned to the County and $19,082 to be returned to the City. However, Dr. Susan
McLeod, Health Department Director, has requested the County's permission to use those surplus funds to offset a
pending shortfall in their FY04 budget. The normal practice is that these surplus funds are returned to the County.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
4.2.1 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure.
DISCUSSION:
At th e time the Health Department prepared their FY04 budget, they did not anticipate any pay increases from the state
and only a 10% anticipated increase in personnel benefits. However, the actions taken by the state in passing the FY04
state budget provided a 2.25% salary increase effective fo[all employees in December. Additionally, VRS and health
insuranCe costs resulted in a 22.6% increase in benefit costs compared to FY03. Due to these changes, the Health
Department is facing a budget shortfall in the current year.
The Health Department's FY04 budget request to the County was actually $40,000 less than their FY03 appropriation,
and they now desperately need the FY03 carry-over funds to meet their FY04 personnel costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends County approval for the Health Department to use $17,119 in FY03 local carry-over funds for their
FY04 budget needs.
04.013
28-01-04A~0:31 RCVD
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation - Democratic Presidential Primary
Election
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Appropriation #2004058,
totaling $34,940, providing funding for the upcoming
Democratic Presidential Primary election.
STAFF CONTACT(S):,
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White
LINK TO ATTACHMENT(S):
h. ttp://cobsqltest01/esattach ments/Futu re/Feb4-
2004/DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY.xls
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: × INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
DISCUSSION:
The Democratic Presidential Primary election will be held on February 10, 2004 and will include the twenty-nine Albemarle
County precincts, including the Central Absentee Precinct. Additional costs associated with this election are antici pared to
be $34,940, as detailed on the attached appropriation form, and will be funded on a reimbursement basis from the State
Electoral Office.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Provide Effective and Efficient County services to the public in a courteous and equitable manner.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #2004058, in the amount of $34,940, for the Democratic Presidential
Primary election.
04.015
28-01-04A'/0:'*'7_.. RCVD
FMS2 i- ......... ~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ~l NUMBER 2004058
REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION FORM I DATE
i BATCH #
_EXPLANATION: ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL. PRIMARY ELECTION
SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER
'.TYPE FUND - DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT
i I 1000 13020 120000. SALARIES. OVERTIME J I 700.00
i t 1000 13020 210000 FICA ....................... ~5~.0-0- .....
i 1 1000 13020 312510 ELECTION OFFICIALS J 1 17,600.00
~ I 1000 13020 350000 PRINTING & BINDING J 1 1,000.00
i I 1000 13020 360000 ADVERTISING J 1 375.00
! I 1000 13020 390000 OTHER PURCHASED SRVCS J 1 12,860.00
i I 1000 13020 520100 POSTAGE J 1 200.00
~ 1; 1000 * 13020 520300=TELECOMMUNICATIONS J 1 1,100.00
i I 1000 13020 '540200 LEASE/RENT BUILDINGS J I 350.00
I 1000 13020 550100 MILEAGE t J 1 200.00
! Ii.1000 13020 600100 OFFICE SUPPUES J 1 300.00
1.= 1000 13020 601700 COPY CENTER J I 200.00
i 21000 24000 240810i PRIMARY ELECTION FUNDS J 2. 34,940.00
~ J
i ;. I 1000 0501 EST REVENUE ' J 34,940.00'
i 070-1 APPROPRIATION J 34,940.00
J
tOTAL 69,880.00 34,940.00 34,940.00
PREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN DATE: 01t14/04
APPROVED BY:. ELLA W. CAREY DATE: 2/19/2004
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Route 20 North Sidewalk Installation Project
SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQU EST:
Request to purchase portions of TMP 78-58K and 78-58G1
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Trank, Muhlberger
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
.ACTION: X
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
IN FORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: ~ ~
BACKGROUND:
The Route 20 North Sidewalk Project is funded through the Capital Improvement Program. To date, staff has procured design
services and is prepared to engage a contractor to install approximately 2,600 linear feet of sidewalk along the east side of
Route 20 North between Route 250 East and Fontana Drive later this winter.
STRAGEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3.1: Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play.
Goal 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.
DISCUSSION:
This project will allow FontanaANilton Farm area residents to safely walk along Route 20 North. In order to construct the 5-foot
wide sidewalk, an eastward extension of the existing VDoT right-of way is needed. Specifically, road frontage along Tax Map
: 78, Parcels 58K (Dorrier) and 58G1 (Wynne) are impacted by the proposed design. Sidewalk installation on the west side of
Route 20 was deemed impractical due to costly wetland relocation and roadway widening.
The County Real Estate Office determined the fair market value of the above-mentioned road frontage. After negotiations with
the property owners, staff and the landowners agreed to the following amounts:
· Dorrier (TMP 78-58K) $13,354.72 for 8,786 sq. ft. or approximately 500 linear feet of road frontage.
· Wynne (TMP 78-58G1) $ 2,956.40 for 1,945 sq. ft. or approximately 100 linear feet of road frontage.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the purchase of the Wynne and Dorrier Road frontage parcels and authorize the
County Executive to execute the Purchase Agreements and Deeds on the County's behalf.
04.012
2c)-01-04A03:42 RCVD
3WING
RIGHT OF WAY
20
VIRGI,NIA
!R 14. 2003
03
04
~ ~ DARDEN
i I TOrtE
I r- PARK
~:'
APPROVED FOR RECORDATION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE
OWNERS' APPROVAL:
THE DIVISION OF THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN IS WITH THE FREE
CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE OF THE UNDERSIGNED
OWNER(S]. PROPRiETOR(S) AND TRUSTEE(S]. ANY REFERENCE TO
FUTURE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, IS TO BE DEEMED AS THEORETICAL
ONLY. ALL STATEMENTS AFFIXED TO THIS PLAT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
SIGNED
SIGNED
NOTARY PUBLIC;
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
THE FOREGOING WAS ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE ME THIS __ DAY OF
20 , BY
SUBDIVISION PARC:EL "Y"
'.OFESSIONAL HEREBY DEDICATED
DRRECT AND TO PUBLIC USE
,ROCEDURES
BY THE VIRGINIA 1,945 S,F.
N56o58,47.E MY COMMISSION EXPIRES;
;, PROFESSIONAL
AND CERTIFIED ~ ~-86.41'
.SO CERTIFY THAT S54°45'41"W X / S66°02'14"E STATE ROUTE20
~N IS BASED ON 20.32'~ ~ /f19.86' STONY POINT ROAD
% ~ / / S62'10'23"E
$35°00'59"W-...~ IF~V:~M._~j%~rJ~,,. ! t , / ~~'-_ _13'48°_ _ S~6°58 '4 ,"W 911. lO' 1'0 TAL
_9,,W . e I I.~ :t i q"V'~. \
..44o3~6_'.~¢,-r.'~''~ S79°45'07';W '~ / '~ \ ~ S55°21'44"E TMP 78-58K
~ ~¢0.7¢ 90.42" / ~ ~ - 7,10' SCYBEL D, DORRIER
. ~ ~') / .._ ~ % W.B. 93 P. 316
$56°58'47"W
TMP 78-58G1
JOHN L. WYNNE AND
JAMES B. WYNNE, TRUSTEES
1720 RUNNING DEER DR.
KESWlCK. VA 22947-9341
D.B. 1637 P. 192
D.B. 1174 P. 571
D,B, 1128 P. 251 COMM. OF VA.
D.B. 316 P. 470
D,B, 201 P. 454 PLAT
HWPB XI P. 87, 88
ZONED; R1
DATE
.ISTED HEREIN ARE IMPOSED CPURSUANT
:ONING ORDINANCE IN EFFECT ON THIS
IFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY. THEY ARE
RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND THEIR
NOT INTENDED iTC IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH.
DATE
D.B. 391 P, 296 PLAT
23.13' \ D.B. 342 P. 227
HWPB II P. 117
\ / ZONED: R1
NOTE: PROPERTY LINE IS APPROXIMATE
LOCATION ONLY. PLATS OF RECORD
SHOW PROPERTY LINE TO FOLLOW
STREAM. HOWEVER, STREAM WAS
RELOCATED BY VDOT. NO EVIDENCE
OF ORIGINAL STREAM LOCATION EXISTS. ~
PROPERTY LINE SHOWN HEREON WAS
COMPUTED TO EXISTING STREAM
LOCATION.
NOTARY PUBLIC
IF
3~278 o'
TMP 78-8B
WILTON ASSOCIATES, L.P.
D.B. 1130 P. 125, 132 PLAT
THOMAS B. "LINCOLN LAND SURVEYOR INC.
671 BERKMAR, CIRCLE
CHARLOTTES¥ILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
434-974-1417
TMODEL SERVER1 C:\DATA9\ 10;)\ 102013000DED1.PRO 102-0130-00
lOWING
rO
~D RIGHT OF WAY
20
VIRGI, NIA
ER 14, 2003
:)03
304
/ICiNi'TY 'MAp N,T',~,
TOWE
E
APPROVED FOR RECORDATION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
DATE
OWNERS APPROVAL
%O,.~ THE DIVISION Of THE LAND DESCRIBED HEREIN IS WITH THE FREE
y CONSENT AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DESIRE OF THE UNDERSIGNED
' OWNER{S), PROPRI'ETOR(S) AND TRUSTEE(S), ANY REFERENCE TO
FUTURE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMEN~r IS TO BE DEEMED AS THEORETICAL
~O~O-~1~ ONLY. ALL STATEMENTs AFFIXEb TO THIS PLAT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT
co~ SIGNED DATE
"x~"Q~'~ NOTARY PUBLIC:
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
THE FOREGOING WAS ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE ME THIS __ DAY OF
20 . BY
SUBDIVISION PARCEL "X" NOTARY PUBLIC
ROFESSIONAL HEREBY DEDICATED
ORRECT AND MY COMMISSION EXPIRES:
~ROCEDURES TO PUBLIC USE
) BY THE VIRGINIA 8.786 S,.F.
S. PROFESSIONAL
~L~%C~E?cTI~Y ,_,THAT $54 '~5',~¢"W '' \ Nee 0214 W I STATE ROUTE 20
2o.,~2 ~ \ /9.s$ / , STONY POINT ROAD
o '~,, ,_ \ / , j 911.10 TOTAL
S35 00'59"W..__ IF^~ ~v,~ \_ ./ 471.8.9' ~ .J. $.5~°~¢',.4_.7~.,W._ 47~!~l.
105.56' ~. .. ~-```~9:~`:::::::::::::::::;~:;.::::~:::::::::.~::~:::~:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.`~::::::: ':':-:':::'-;".~i~;;-~ S - ' ' 352.80'
~. ~.~-, '.:.:-:.: : :-:- · .:... · ..'.-..'.'.'.'.'.' '.' ' ' ' .~ ~i-'~ ...... e ....
.__ - .......... .'. ...... ° 5W S$~65-847 W~S
'--, : :.:.:.:.'.' '.'.'.'.','.'.'-' 51 160, . . o , .
............... S45 39 56 W
,--,"W ,,. r~ moo ~] ~ vv---'-"-- ~~ I~:~ ~o] ~ .",~, - 3uu. _
-...--¢~6~.f' / /..~ \ \ , TMP 78-58K
- ----- ~ / / "7 \ ~--sssos84.r'w
~ /~ \ \ 50.00 SCYBEL D. DORRIER
/ I \ \ 1395 STONY POINT RD. '
/o .... ~ ........ ',. S49'59'12"W CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911
JOHN L WYNNE AND / ,~.,u ~ D.B. 391 P. 296 PLAT
JAMES 'B WY~NE, ~RUSTEES ~ D.B. 342 P. 227
D,B, 1637 P. 192 ~ HWPB I P. 117 .....y
D.B. 1174 P, 571
D,B, 1128 P, 251 COMM. OF VA. ZONED: R1
IF
D.B. 316 P. 470
D.B. 201 P 454 PLAT
HWPB Xl P 87, 88
ZONED: R1
NOTE: PROPERTY LINE IS APPROXIMATE
LOCATION ONLY. PLATS OF RECORD
SHOW PROPERTY LINE TO FOLLOW
STREAM. HOWEVER, STREAM WAS
RELOCATED BY VDOT. NO EVIDENCE
OF ORIGINAL STREAM LOCATION EXISTS.
PROPERTY LINE SHOWN HEREON WAS
COMPUTED TO EXISTING STREAM
LOCATION.
ISTED HEREIN ARE IMPOSED ~PURSUANT
ONING ORDINANCE N EFFECT ON THIS
FORMATION PURPOSES ONLY THEY ARE
RUNNING WITH THE LAND AND THEIR
NOT INTENDED TO IMPOSE THEM AS SUCH.
TMODEL SERVER1 C:\DATAg\ 102~\ 102013000DED2.PRO
TMP 78-8B
WILTON ASSOCIATES, L,P.
D.B. 1130 P, 125, 132 PLAT
THOMAS B. LINCOLN LAND SURVEYOR INC.
671 BERKMAR CIRCLE
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22901
434-974-1417
102-0130-00
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Project Status Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
A regular update on the status of the Neighborhood Model
implementation and other departmental projects
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
BACKGROUND:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
Quarterly updates have been provided to the County Board on the status of the Neighborhood Model implementation and other
major initiatives over the last two years. Community Development expanded this update to include discussion of other projects.
This update has been expanded to cover four months, but quarterly updates are planned for the future.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
GOAL: Provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers
DISCUSSION:
The attached quarterly update provides a snapshot on the status of projects being managed by Community Development. The last
quarter has seen considerable progress in projects ready for consideration by the Planning Commission and Board.
Among the Comprehensive Plan projects anticipated to come before the Board in early 2004 are: · Crozet Master Plan
· Rural Area Plan
· Affordable Housing
· Community Facilities Plan
· Stormwater Master Plan
Among the ordinance amendments anticipated to come before the Board in early 2004 are: · Subdivision Ordinance changes related to the Neighborhood Model, 2"d part
· Zoning Ordinance changes related to the Neighborhood Model, 2"d part.
· Relegated Parking, changes related to Neighborhood Model
· Groundwater program
· Wireless policy amendments (mid year)
· Sign policy amendments (mid year)
· "Housekeeping" amendments to Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances in support of new department.
RECOMMENDATION:
None. Advise Community Development as to any changes in the pdodtization of projects which the County Board would like to
see.
Attachments:
A - Community Development Quarterly Update
04.004 28-01-04A~,0:'~8 RCVD
Community Development Update
September-December 2003
Priority Policy and Implementation Issues
Neighborhood Model Implementation
1. Modify Comprehensive Plan - Complete
2. Modify Community Facilities Plan - Anticipated Completion, May 2004. The Planning Commission has
held two work sessions. Solid Waste, Parks, and Administrative sections are being managed under
separate efforts and, depending on the timing, will be either incorporated with this revision or a later
revision.
3. Regulatory Changes
A. Shared Driveways / Alleys - Complete
B. Volume 2 Subdivision Changes - Initial public discussion held in July and comments addressed.
Planning Commission public hearing scheduled for January 20th. Board work session planned for
February 4th.
C. Neighborhood Model District - Complete
D. Critical Slopes - On Hold. Work on critical slopes has been postponed to staff relegated parking.
Work on critical slopes will start once relegated parking is completed.
E. Volume 2 Zoning Changes - Changes have been drafted and focused discussion with public
scheduled for late February 2004. Will come to Planning Commission after comments have been
considered.
F. Relegated Parking - Planning Commission has completed worksessions and a public focused
discussion is being scheduled. After comments are incorporated, will be brought back to Planning
Commission after comments from the focused discussion have been considered.
4. Master Planning
A. Crozet Master Plan - Planning Commission worksessions complete in December. Anticipate
Planning Commission action in January, then forwarded to Board for consideration.
B. Second Master Plan - Area established by Board. Staff currently preparing to contract for
consultant, with work to start mid-year. Coordinating this effort with the U.S. 29 transportation
corridor study being contracted.
5. Infrastructure and Services
A. Subdivision Street Standards
1. Under current VDOT regulations - COmplete. An interim agreement has been reached with
VDOT on how Neighborhood Model streets will be accommodated under the current regulations.
While this accomplishes many of the County's goals for streets, revisions to the VDOT
regulations are needed to accomplish anything else.
2. Revisions to VDOT Regulations - Anticipate Completion, January 2005. Participation on
VDOT Subdivision Street Regulations Committee has completed draft regulations which will be
distributed for statewide public comment in early 2004. Anticipate Commonwealth
Transportation Board public hearing July 2004 on revisions and revisions effective by January
2005. This revision will not address all of the County's goals for streets, but does satisfactorily
address the major issues.
B. Water and Sewer Provisions - Complete, agreement reached on streets issues that allows public
utilities in the street.
C. Fire Protection Provisions - Complete, agreement reached on street issues that matches fire
equipment to proposed street cross sections.
6. Affordable Housing -Planning Commission Public Hearing held in October 2003. Board work session
on January 7th. No public hearing date set at this time.
7. Parks and Recreation Facilities - Anticipated Completion, May 2004. Parks and Recreation Needs
Assessment nearing completion. A next step to be determined upon review of needs assessment.
8. Promoting Infill - Ongoing. Workload related to ZMAs very heavy. North Pointe requiring an
especially high level of staff resources.
Groundwater
1. Committee has completed its study and presented recommendation to County Board. Board has directed
staff to prepare an ordinance for consideration based on this recommendation.
2. Ordinance language drafted and will be taken to focused discussion in January for public input. Planning
Commission work session will be scheduled once comments from public have been compiled and
addressed.
3.Anticipate before Planning Commission in March. Anticipate before Board in May.
Rural Area Comprehensive Plan Revisions 1. Updated staff report has been completed and under public review.
2. Planning Commission public hearing on December 16th. Planning Commission is holding additional
work sessions and considering the next steps in developing a recommendation.
3. Mountain Protection work will commence following review of Rural Area revisions. No timeline has
been set for this work.
Wireless Towers - Ordinance amendments drafted and under review. A focused public discussion was held on
December 4th and comments were received. Anticipate work session with Planning Commission in March.
Focused Sign Amendments - Ordinance language drafted. Focused discussion for public input planned for February.
Planning Commission to follow consideration of public input.
Strategic Plan Initiatives
1. Implementation strategy for completed neighborhood master plans. - Completed strategy, developing
action plans to be put in place with anticipated adoption of Crozet Master Plan.
2. Implementation strategy for County's rural area policies - Strategies being developed concurrently with
consideration of the rural area plan.
3. Integrated water resources plan - Scheduled for completion December 2004. Staff currently devoting
efforts to groundwater ordinance and implementation of that program.
4. Long-term solid waste strategy - Scheduled for completion July 2004. Steering committee has been
formed and has provided staff recommendations on proceeding.
Community Development Department Reorganization 1. Work processes developed and operating procedures being established.
2. FY '05 budget request submitted in November.
3. Central filing and intake to start end of January with Building and Zoning applications. Next step will be
Engineering's applications, followed by Planning's applications. Anticipate fully operational by May.
4. Engineering Inspections shifted to Building and Inspections on January 5th.
5. New development tracking database (CityView) to become operational on February 2nd.
6. Transition still scheduled to be completed by June.
Additional Policy and Implementation Issues
These are the other efforts currently underway. They are not presented in order of priority and often proceed
independent of the priority issues. When conflicts over resources occur, the priority issues are addressed first.
Development tracking database (CityView) - Final product to be implemented in February. Training completed in
December.
29H250 Phase II Study - Phase II kick-offin October. Work being done by a consultant with guidance from a
City/County/TJPDC work group. Report anticipated in March. Phase 3 contract being negotiated. Phase 3 to
consider U.S. 29 corridor and would start when Phase 2 report is completed.
Stormwater Master Plan - A draft report has been completed and is being reviewed by staff. Anticipate bringing
before Board in early 2004 for information and agreement on implementation process. Implementation issues,
including financing recommendations, will be considered before bringing this to the Planning Commission and Board
for consideration as part of the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning/Subdivision Text Amendments - Work on the priority issues is addressed before assignments are made on
these.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Phase 2 Lighting Changes
Temporary Events
Home Occupations
Building Sites
Contractor's office and equipment storage
Plat coordinate referencing for GIS
Housekeeping, clarification of interpretations of the ordinance
Historic Committee - Working on implementation of Board approved "Top Ten" priorities.
Other Transportation - Staffis actively involved with the MPO, TJPDC and citizen committees on the major update
of the region's transportation plans (CHART/Un Jam).
Comprehensive Plan - Developing proposed work plan for consideration of Economic Development Policy.
Additionally, staff is involved with three significant studies that will likely lead to Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
1. Southern Urban Area B Study (PACC project being managed by County and undertaken by consultant)
2. Pantops Transportation/Land Use Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Planning Commission Resolution of
Intent)
3. 5th Street/Avon Street Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Applicant request)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Water Program Updates
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on the Rivanna Regional Stormwater Education
Partnership and Chesapeake Bay Partner Community Award
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Graham, Hirschman
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
February 4, 2004
ACTION: IN FORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
ATTACHMENTS: Flyer for "After the Storm: Stormwater
Workshop" and letter from Chesapeake Bay Local
Government Advisory Committee /
REVIEWED BY: ,~ ~
BACKGROUND:
Albemarle County must comply with a federally mandated stormwater permit program, administered in Virginia by the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). The program, known as NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) Phase II, applies to small "municipal separate storm sewer systems" (MS4s), meaning municipally owned and/or
operated systems that receive and convey runoff to streams. Municipalities that operate regulated MS4s must develop a
stormwater management program that meets m~nimum standards. One of these standards concerns public education and
outreach on stormwater issues.
At its meeting on February 5, 2003, the Board authorized staff to proceed with a "registration statement" that covers the County
under DEQ's general permit. This statement was approved by DEQ, became effective on May 13, 2003, and will be in effect
for five years from that date.
Other entities in the region covered by this stormwater requirement include: City of Charlottesville, University of Virginia,
Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, and the Virginia Department of Transportation. In accordance with the programs of each of
these entities, the Rivanna Regional Stormwater Education Partnership was formed. This alliance allows each of the permitted
-agencies to cooperate and collaborate on stormwater education efforts, thus streamlining the program and unifying the
message that the public receives about stormwater impacts and recommendations. To date, the partnership has launched a
web site (hosted on the County's water resources page) that allows citizens to "surf" their watershed and discover relevant
information on how to protect water resources, and has planned a seminar on stormwater management (see attached flyer).
A different but related program is administered by the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee (a component
of the overall Chesapeake Bay Program). In this program, local governments can apply for a Chesapeake Bay Partner
Corem unity award that gauges local participation in commitments of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement between the Bay states,
the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the EPA. Albemarle County first received recognition as a "Silver" Bay Partner
Community in 1997, and this certification has recently been renewed (see attached letter). This distinction is based on the
County's programs for land use and water resources.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3.1: Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, Work
and play
Goal 2.2: Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources.
Goal 2.3: Provide for environmentally sensitive government operations at the local and regional level.
DISCUSSION:
With the Board's continued endorsement, County staff plans to continue to participate in the Rivanna Regional Stormwater
Education Partnership in compliance with its MS4 permit.
26-01-04P12:~5 ~r;VD
AGEN DA TITLE:
Water Program Updates
February 4, 2004
Page 2
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is for information only.
04.009
Chesapeake Bay
Local Government Advisory Committee
777 N. Capitol St., NE, Suite 500
Washington, DC 20002
202/962-3589
Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager
Albemarle County
401 Mclntire Rd. Room 211
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
November 14, 2003
Dear Mr. Hirschman:
I am writing to congratulate you on your successful application to the Chesapeake
Bay Partner Commtmity Awards Program. The County of Albemarle is now recertified as
a Silver level Bay Partner! Your community has demonstrated its commitment to
restoring and protecting the bay, its rivers, and its streams. The Local Government
AdvisoryCommittee would like to recognize your efforts.
As part of your award, the County of Albemarle will receive a road sign for display in
your community, a citation from the Chesapeake Bay Program, local and regional press
releases and recognition of your achievement at the Bay Program Executive Council
meeting.
If you would like to schedule a presentation of your road sign and citation, please contact
Mark Thompson, staff to the Local Government Advisory Committee at 202/962-3589 or
Theresa Martella, Chesapeake Bay Partner Community Awards Coordinator at 215-814-
5423.
Once again, cortgratulations on your award, and thank you for doing your part to restore
and protect the Chesapeake Bay.
Sincerely,
Ellen Moyer, Chair
Local Government Advisory Committee
After The Storm: A Workshop
on Innovative Stormwater
hfanagement
Sponsored by the Rivanna Regional
Stormwater Education
Partnership*, Thomas 3efferson
Soil & Water Conservation District
& 3ames River Roundtable
· Getting Started with Stormwater
· Technologies &Techniques
· Low-Impact Development
· Maintenance, Costs, Permits
· Interactive Forum
WHEN; February 10, 2004 - 8:30 AM to 3=30 PM
WHERE= Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, VA
TO REG:[STER= Send the registration form and $20 to the Thomas
3efferson Soil & Water Conservation District by February 3, 2004.
*The Rivanna Regional Stormwater Education Partnership is a collaboration of agencies in the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area that hold Phase II storm sewer permits through the Department of
Environmental Quality. Partners include: City of Charlottesville, Albemarle County, University of
Virginia, Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, and Virginia Department of Transportation. See the
Partnership's website at: www.a]bcmarle.o~; (click on Services, Water Resources, and then the link
to the Stormwater Page).
NAM E: ORGANIZATION:
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE: FAX:
EMAIL:
Send with $20 check payable to "Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Conservation District" to:
TJSWCD, ATTN: Stormwater Workshop, 2134 Berkmar Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22901.
Registration Deadline is February 3. For info, call TJSWCD at (434)975-0224.
FAX (434) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclnfire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (4S4) 296-5832
TTD (434) 9724012
December30,2003
Daniel J. Bieker
4174 Laird Lane
North Garden, VA 22959
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax
Map 99, Parcels 38A, 39 and 40 (Property of Daniel J. Bieker) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Bieker:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 99,. Parcel 38A is a parcel of record with five (5) development rights. Tax Map
99, Parcel 39 is a parcel of record with five (5) development rights. Tax Map 99, Parcel
40 is comprised of five (5) separate parcels of record that are identified on the attached
sketch. Lot I contains 5 3/8s acres and two (2) development rights. Lot 2 also contains
5 3/8s acres and two (2) development rights. Lot 3 contains 3 1/8 acres and one (1)
development right. Lot 4 also contains 5 3/8s acres and one development right. Lot 5
contains 1.8 acres and one (1) development right. The basis for this determination is
summarized as follows.
Tax Map 99, Parcel 38A
Our records indicate Tax Map 99, Parcel 38A contains 75.250 acres and one dwelling.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 1063, page 344.
The most recent instrument for Parcel 38A recorded prior to the date of adoption of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 544, page
159. This deed, dated January 14, 1974, conveyed a ~ interest in 75.25 acres from
Archie D. Rohm & Eva M. Rohm to Richard A. Rohm. The parcel is more particularly
designated as Tract A on a plat by A. R. Sweet, dated October 8, 1948 and recorded in
Deed Book 281, page 49.
On the basis of this deed it is determined that Parcel 38A is a parcel of record as
provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance.
I:\DEPT~CZS\Determin of Parcel~2.003 ACE~99-38A Bieker. doc
Bieker
December 30, 2003
Page 2
Deed Book 945, page 281, dated June 10, 1987, conveyed the remaining ~ interest in
75.25 acres from Archie D. Rohm & Eva M. Rohm to Richard A. Rohm. The parcel is
more particularly designated as Tract A on a plat by A. R. Sweet, dated October 8, 1948
and recorded in Deed Book 281, page 49.
Deed Book 1063, page 344, dated July 27, 1989, conveyed 75.25 acres from Richard
A. Rohm & Mildred Rohm to Daniel J. Bieker. The parcel is more particularly described
as Tract A on a plat by A. R. Sweet, dated October 8, 1948 and recorded in Deed Book
281, page 49 and is the same property in all respects that was conveyed to Richard
Rohm in two deeds; Deed Book 544, page 159 and Deed Book 945, page 281. There
have been no off conveyances since this transaction.
Based on this history, Tax Map 99, Parcel 38A is determined to be a single parcel
of record with five (5) development rights if all other applicable regulations can be
met.
Tax Map 99, parcel 39
Our records indicate Tax Map 99, Parcel 39 contains 13.190 acres and no dwellings.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 1849, page 387.
The most recent instrument for Parcel 39 recorded prior to the date of adoption of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 342, page
243. This deed, dated March 22, 1958, conveyed 14.5 acres plus a right of way from
Sarah T. Gordon to Harper A. Gordon. The deed contains a metes and bounds
description of the 14.5-acre parcel. The deed references a deed recorded on April 12,
1915 for. a plat and a metes and bounds deScription of the right of way.
On the basis of this deed it is determined that Parcel 39 is a parcel of record as
provided in Section 10.3 of the zoning ordinance.
Deed B.ook 1849, page 387, dated August 11, 1999, conveyed 13.19 acres from Betty
P. Gordon to Daniel J. Bieker. The property is shown on a plat by Alan M. Hale that is
attached to the deed. It is further described as being the same real estate which was
conveyed to Harper A. Gordon by the deed recorded in Deed Book 342, page 243.
Based on this history, Tax Map 99, Parcel 39 is determined to be a single parcel of
record with five (5) development rights if all other applicable regulations can be
met.
I:'~DEP'r~,cZS~Detemqin of Parcel~003 AC~99-38A Bieker. doc
Bieker
December 30, 2003
Page 3
Tax Map 99~ Parcel 40
Our records indicate Tax Map 99, Parcel 40 contains 17.00 acres and no dwellings. The
property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property
is recorded in Deed Book 2578, page 442.
This determination begins with Deed Book 162, page 388, dated May 12, 1916. This
deed conveyed 1.8 acres from D.P. Woodson and W.J. Woodson to A.D. Hart. The tract
is shown on a plat attached to the deed. The subdivision of this tract effectively divided
the parent parcel into three separate parcels.
The most recent instrument for Parcel 40 recorded prior to the date of adoption of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 171, page
488. This deed, dated November 20, 1919, conveyed two tracts of land from Jane -
Melinda Stewart & George Stewart and Henry Thomas & Evaline Thomas to A. D. Hart.
The tracts are described as containing 10 3,4 acres and 6 ~,4 acres respectively.
The deed further provides that the plats of said two tracts made by N. Barrett S.A.C May
1884, being also recorded in D.B. 162, page 337, the divisional plat of said two tracts
made by George Gordon for the heirs of Ned and Aleck Madison, July 1917 is also
recorded with this deed and made part of the same.
Based on this history, Tax Map 99, Parcel 40 is determined to be comprised of
five separate parcels; The parcel containing 1.8 acres-that was divided from the
parent tract in 1916 contains one (1) development right. The two parcels that are
derived from the 10.75- acre tract each contain two (2) development rights. The
two additional parcels are derived from the 6.25 acre tract each contain one (1)
development right. These development rights may be utilized only if all other
applicable regulations can be met.
-These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum
number of lots containing less than twenty-one acres allowed to be created by right. In
addition, to the development right lots, one parcel containing a minimum of twenty-one
acres may be created, if all other applicable regulations can be met. A chart showing
the development potential of these parcels is enclosed.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
I:~DEPT~BCZS\Detenmin of Parcel~2003 AC~99-38A Bieker, doc
Bieker
December 30, 2003
Page 4
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If
you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies: Gay Carver, Real Estate Department,
Ella Carey, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors
Ches Goodall, Acquisition of Conservation Easements Program Coordinator
DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL OF Tax Map 99, Parcels 38A, 39 & 40
PARCEL ACREAGE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT DIVISION TOTAL
LOTS 2 ACRE MIN. RIGHT LOTS POTENTIAL
21 ACRE MIN. PARCELS
38A 75.25 5 3' 8
39 13.19 5 0 5
40' (part) #1 5 3/8' 2 0 2
40 (part) #2 5 3/8 2 0 2
40 (part) #3 3 1/8 I 0 1
40 (part) #4 3 1/8 I 1 0 1
40 (part) #5 1.8 1 0 1
Total 105.44 [ 17 3 20
l:',DEPT~BCZS\Determin of Parcel~.003 ACE~99-38A Bieker. doc
FAX (434) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclnfire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
ec~o
TTD (434) 972-4012
December 30, 2003
Timothy Mark or Alice Rowe Scruby
8153 Dickwood Road
Afton, VA 22920
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 54, Parcel 71, Tax Map 69, Parcel 39 and Tax Map 70, Parcel 33A (Property of
Timothy Mark Scruby or Alice Rowe Scruby) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. And Ms. Scruby:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 54, Parcel 71 is a parcel of record with five (5) theoretical development rights.
Tax Map 69, Parcel 39 is a parcel of record with five (5) theoretical development dghts.
Tax Map 70, Parcel 33A is a parcel created in 1992 with three (3) theoretical
development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows:
Tax Map 54, Parcel 71
OUr records indicate Tax Map 54, Parcel 71 contains 11.556 acres and one dwelling.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Will Book 92, page 167.
The most recent deed for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance,
December 10, 1980, is recorded in Deed Book 289, page 14. This deed, dated April 27,
1950, cgnveyed 12 acres, more or less, from Victoria P. Townsend to Gene F. Shirley,
William Gray Shidey and Francis Lee Shirley. The property is further described as being
the same land conveyed to the Grantor by the deed recorded in Deed Book 251, page
220, in which the plat of the property is shown to contain 13.4 acres, save and except
three off conveyances to Dorothy Woodson as follows: One-half acre recorded in Deed
Book 181, page 48, 0.065 acres recorded in Deed Book 207, page, 544 and 0.81 acres
recorded in Deed Book 285, page 399. [13.4 - (.5 + .065 + .81) = 12.025] There have
been no off-COnveyances of land from this parcel since the recordation of this deed.
I:'~DEPT~BCZS~Determin of Parcel~.003 AC~54-71 etc Timothy Scruby,doc
Timothy & Alice Scruby
December 30, 2003
Page 2
There have been no off-conveyances of land from this parcel since this transaction.
Based on this deed, Tax Map 54, Parcel 71 is determined to be a parcel of record
with five (5) theoretical development rights.
Tax Map 69, Parcel 39 & Tax Map 70, Parcel 33A
Our records indicate Tax Map 69, Parcel 39 contains 25.264 acres and one dwelling.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 1971, page 727.
Our records indicate Tax Map 70, Parcel 33A contains 69.381 acres and no dwellings.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestai District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 1971, page 727.
This analysis begins with Deed Book 210, page 588, dated October 15, 1930. This deed
conveyed 7 3,4 acres from C. B: Shirley and Clara G. Shirley to Ben D. Showers. The
parcel is shown on a plat that is attached to the deed. The 7.75-acre tract now is
comprised of Parcel 40 and 40A on Map 69. As a result of this off-conveyance, the
original Parcel 39 is determined to have been divided into three separate tracts,
The acreage of these tracts is not indicated in the deed. This is in accord with the
determination by the Zoning Administrator, dated November 18, 1992, that Parcel
39 was then found to be two tracts as follows: The western parcel containing
25.318 acres and the eastern parcel containing 126.27 acres. The 7,75-acre parcel
is situated between these two tracts. This is the most recent deed recorded prior
to the adoption of the ordinance, December 10, 1980, for the western portion of
Parcel 39. It is on the basis of this deed that the portion of the original Parcel 39,
now comprised of T.M. 69-39A and T.M. 70-33A, is determined to have been a lot
of record per section 10.3 on December 10, 1980.
The most recent deed for the eastern portion of this parcel recorded prior to the
adoption of the ordinance, December 10, 1980, is recorded in Deed Book 260, page
295. This deed, dated May 3, 1939, conveyed 5.7 acres, more or less, from Clara G.
Shidey to Lirtie Awkard. The property is shown on a plat by Hugh Simms that is a part of
this deed. This is the last of several off-conveyances from the Pea Ridge Tract. It is on
the basis of this deed that the eastern portion of Parcel 39, containing 25.318 on
December 10, 1980, is determined to be a lot of record per section 10.3.
Deed Book 1274, page 463 contains a Deed of Partition and Gift that is dated
November 12, 1992. It is between Francis Shirley Scruby & Ralph Edwin Scruby, Brian
I:~DEPT~CZS~Determin of Parcel~?.003 ACE~4-71 etc Timothy Scruby. doc
Timothy & Alice Scruby
December 30, 2003
Page 3
Gray Scruby and Timothy Mark Scruby & Alice Rowe Scruby, Grantors and Grantees.
The purpose of this deed is to divide the Grantors' proportional interest in a tract that
contained 151.588 acres and was identified as Tax Map 69, Parcel 39 into clearly
defined fee simple estates. The particular parcels described in this deed are shown on
an attached plat by S. L. Key, dated November 12, 1992 and revised on November 24,
1992. The parcel is divided as follows:
94.699 acres were conveyed to Timothy Mark Scruby and Alice Rowe Scruby.
The land is identified as Parcel Y containing 69.381 acres (TM 70-33A) and
Residue containing 25.318 acres (TM 69-39). The plat allocated 3 development
rights to Parcel Y and noted that the residue retained 5 development rights.
56.889 acres were conveyed to Brian Gray Scruby. The land is identified as
Parcel X on S.L. Key's plat. (TM 69-39A) The plat allocated 2 development rights
to Parcel X.
The Grantors conveyed-to Francis Shirley Scruby an undivided 43% interest in
the 56.889 acre tract.
The Grantors also conveyed to Ralph Edwin Scruby an undivided 51% interest in
the 56.889 acre tract.
As a result of this transaction, T.M. 70-33A has 69.381 acres and. 3 development
rights. TM 69-39 has 25.318 acres and 5 development_rights. TM 69-39A has
56.889 acres and 2 development rights.
Deed Book 1971, page 727, dated July 11,2000 contains a Deed of Exchange between
Timothy Mark Scruby & Alice Rowe Scruby, owners of T.M. 69-39 and Jeffrey Scott
Jewell & Rebecca Ann Jewell, owners of T.M. 69-42A. The boundary adjustment is
shown on a plat by S. L. Key, dated September 9, 1999. There have been no off
conveyances since the recordation of this deed.
As a result of this transaction Parcel 39 has 25.264' acres and 5 development
rights.
There have been conveyances of percentages of ownership of these parcels between
members of the Scruby family. A list of those transactions is attached to this
determination. Those transactions have had no effect on the legal status or
development rights of the parcels addressed in this determination.
I:~DEPT~CZS~Determin of Parcel~2003 ACE~4-71 etc Timothy Scruby.doc
Timothy & Alice Scruby
December 30, 2003
Page 4
These parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable
regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do
represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to
be created by right.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies:
McChesney Goodall, Coordinator of ACE Program
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
Enclosed · 1980 and 2002 Tax Maps
Gift deeds that conveyed fractional ownership interests
TM-P Acreage Division rights for 21 I Development rights
acre minimum
parcels
TM 69-39 25.264 0 5
TM 70-33A 69.381 3 3
54-71 11.556 0 5
TQTAL 106.255 3 13
k\DEPT~CZS~Determin of Parce/~2003 ACE~54-71 etc Timothy Scruby. doc
These are deeds of gift that conveyed fractional interests in the referenced parcels.
None of these transactions had any effect on the status of these parcels or their
development rights.
Deeds in file
DB/p, Date From To TM/P Percentage
1081 -335 i 11/20/89 Frances S. Ralph S. 54 - 71 50%
55- 14 1/6
69-39 25%
1219 - 700 2/7/92 Ralph S. Timothy & Alice 54-71 10%
1219 - 703 2_./7/92 Frances S. Timothy & Alice , 54-71 10%
1525 - 216 3/20/96 Frances & Timothy & Alice 54 - 71 7.5%
Ralph
1081 - 339 11/20/89 , Ralph S. Brian 55 - 14 5%
1081 - 348 11/20/89 Frances S. Brian 55 - 14 5%
1090 -284 1/25/90 Ralph S. Brian , 55 - 14 5%,
1090 - 287 1/25/90 Frances + Brian 55 - 14 5%
Ralph
1219 - 687 2/7/92 Ralph Brian 55 -14 2;67%
54 - 72A 2.67%
12i 9 - 690 2/7/92 Frances Brian 55 -14 2.67%
54 72A 2.67%
1081 - 342 11/20/89 Ralph' S. Timothy & Alice 69 - 39 4%
1081 345 11/20/89 Frances S. Timothy & Alice 69 - 39 4%
1090 - 290 1/25/90 Frances S. Timothy & Alice 69 - 39 4% ,
'I,219 - 694 2/7/92 Ralph S. Brian 69 - 39 1%
1219 - 697 2/7/92 ; - Frances S. Brian 69 - 39 1%
1785 - 244 1/27/99 Frances Brian 69 - 39 5.5%
Deeds not iQ
file but
referenced in
1785/245
1274 - 643 11/12/92 6%
1308 - 643 1/2/93 7.5
1308 - 652 1/2/93 7.5
1385 - 286 2/10/94 6%
1385 - 289 2/10/94 6%
1458 - 318 3/9/95 6%
1458 - 327 3/9/95 6%
1525 - 210 3/20/96 6%
1525 - 213 3/20/96 6%
1591 - 482 1/29/97 6%
1591 - 485 1/29/97 ?%
1672 - 608 1/22/98 , , , ' ?%
1672 - 611 1/22/98 6%
WB 92 -167 13.5%
I:\DEPT~BCZS~Determin of Parcel~2003 ACE~4-71 etc Timothy Scruby. doc
i I
,f
./
'%.
FAX (434) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
TTD (434) 972-4012
December 30, 2003
Samuel Hill
7670 Scottsville Road
Scottsville, VA 24590
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 130, Parcel 17B (Property of Samuel Hill) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Hill:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property, it is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 130, Parcel 17B is a separate parcel with five (5) development rights. The
basis for this determination is summarized as follows:
Our records indicate Tax Map 130, Parcel 17B contains 145.21 acres and one dwelling.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 883, page 626.
This analysis begins with Deed Book 359, page 485, dated June 24, 1960. This deed
conveyed 145.69 acres from Mortimer A. Wilson and Elinor H. Wilson to Earl D. Roberts
and Winifred B. Roberts. The property is more particularly described by a plat by O. R.
Randolph, dated June 21, 1960 that is attached to this deed.
The most recent deed for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance,
December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book Deed Book 684, page 745 and is dated
August 29, 1979. This deed conveyed 1.04 acres from Earl D. Roberts and Winifred B.
Roberts.to the Commonwealth of Virginia. This property is conveyed for the right of way
of Route 20. The property is described as being a part of the same land acquired by the
grantor from Mortimer A. and Elinore H. Wilson by the deed recorded in Deed Book
359, page 485. Based on this deed, Tax Map 130, Parcel 17B is determined to be a
parcel of record with five (5) theoretical development rights.
The deed noted that 0.56 acres is included in the existing right of way and 0.48 acres is
additional land. The Real Estate Department reduced the acreage by 0.48 acres rather
l:\DEPT~BCZ$~Determin of Parcel~2003 AC~130-17B Hill.doc
Samuel Hill
December 30, 2003
Page 2
than 1.04 acres. The County's real estate records will be revised to show that Parcel
~7'~ contains 144.65 acres rather than 145.21 acres.
Deed Book 883, page 626, dated June 16, 1986, conveyed property from Earl D.
Roberts and Winifred B. Roberts to Samuel Hill. The property is described as containing
the 145.69 acres shown on the plat by O.R. Randolph recorded in Deed Book 359,
page 487, less and except strip of land conveyed to the Commonwealth by the deed
recorded in Deed Book 684, page 745. This transaction had no effect on the property's
status as a parcel or on development rights.
This parcel is entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations
can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the
maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created
by right.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
J'/ohn Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies:~ McChesney Goodall, Coordinator of the ACE Program
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
TM-P Acreage Division rights for 21 Development rights'
acre minimum
parcels
TM 130-17B 144.65 6 5
I:~)EPT~BCZS~)etermin of Parcel~2003 AC~130-17B Hill.doc
FAX I434) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclnfire Road, Room 227
Chafloffesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
TTD (434) 972-4012
December 30, 2003
James M.~nd Mary H. Shifflett
7819 Saint Claire Lane
Baltimore, ND 21222
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 7, Parcel 25 (Property of James M. and Mary H. Shifflett) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. And Ms. Shifflett:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 7, Parcel 25 is a separate parcel with five (5) development rights. The basis for
this determination is summarized as follows:
Our records indicate Tax Map 7, Parcel 25 contains 61.6 acres and one dwelling. The
property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property
is recorded in Deed Book 761, page 163.
The most recent deed for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance,
December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book Deed Book 292, page 304, dated
November 6, 1950. This deed conveyed 61.6 acres from Thomas Shiflett to James
Monroe Shiflett. Thomas Shiflett, the Grantor, retained a life estate in the property. This
deed also conveyed a life estate to Loumonia Shiflett, wife of the Grantor. There have
been no off-conveyances since this transaction. Based on this deed, Tax Map 73,
Parcel 24 is determined to be a parcel of record with five (5) theoretical development
rights.
Deed Book 761, page 163, dated April 18, 1983, conveyed 61.6 acres from James
Monroe Shifflett to James Monroe Shifflett and Mary H. Shifflett. The tract is further
described as being the same property as was conveyed to James Monroe Shifflett by
the deed recorded in Deed Book 292, page 304. This transaction had no effect on the
status of this parcel or development rights.
This parcel is entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable regulations
can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the
I:\DEPT~CZS\Determin of Parcel~003 ACE~7-25 Shifflett. doc
James M. and Mary H. Shifflett
December 30, 2003
Page 2
maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres ~."owed to be created
by right.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies:
McChesney Goodall, Coordinator of the ACE Program
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
TM-P Acreage Division rights for 21 Development rights
acre minimum
parcels
TM 7-25 61.6 2 5
I:'J3EPT~BCZS\Determin of Parcel~.003 AC~7-25 Shifflett. doc
FAX (434) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
TTD (434) 972-4012
December 30, 2003
Henry C. Page, Jr.
4000 Pagebrook Farm
Charlottesville, VA 22903
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 73, Parcel 24 (Property of Henry C. Page, Jr.) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Page:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property.. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 73, Parcel 24 is a separate parcel with five (5) development rights. The basis
for this determination is summarized as follows:
Our records indicate Tax Map 73, Parcel 24 contains 558.9 acres and one dwelling. The
property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property
is recorded in Deed Book 369, page 329.
The most recent deed for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance,
December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book Deed Book 369, page 329, dated June 9,
1961. This deed conveyed a one-half undivided interest in 558 acres from Jack F. Page
to Henry C. Page Jr. The property is described as being the same property in which a ~/~
undivided interest was conveyed to the party of the first part by the deed of C. Vest
Wingfield dated September 21, 1942 and recorded in Deed Book 255, page 378. That
deed conveyed 672 acres. This deed (369/329) also referenced a deed dated October
1, 1942 and recorded in Deed Book 255, page 382, in which the party of the first part
along with Henry C. Page, Sr. conveyed 113.1 acres off to William G. Page. That deed
contains a plat by Hugh Simms, dated September 1942. There have been no off-
conveyances since this transaction. Based on this deed (369/329), Tax Map 73, Parcel
24 is determined to be a parcel of record with five (5) theoretical development rights.
This parcel is entitled to the noted development dghts if all other applicable regulations
can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the
maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to be created
by right.
I:\DEPT~OZS~etermin of Parcel~2003 AC~73-24 Page.doc
Pagebrook Farm
December 30, 2003
Page 2
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies:
McChesney Goodall, Coordinator of the ACE Program
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
TM-P Acreage Division rights for 21 Development rights
acre minimum
parcels
TM 73-47 558.9 26 5
I:~:)EP'r~BCZS~Determin of Parcel~?.003 AC~73-24 Page.doc
FAX (434) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
TrD (434) 972-4012
January 8,2004
Carlo Colombini
2660 Pinch Em Slyly Place
Charlottesville, VA 22911
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 47, Parcels 12A & 14 and Tax Map 62, Parcels 50F & 52 (Property of Carlo
Colombini and Red Bud Land Trust) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Colombini:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
prOperty. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 47, Parcel 12A is a separate parcel with one (1) development right. Tax Map
47, Parcel 14 is a separate a parcel with five (5) development rights. Tax Map 62,
Parcel 50F is a separate parcel with five (5) development rights. Tax Map 62, Parcel 52
is a separate parcel with five (5) development rights. The basis for this determination is
summarized as follows:
Tax Map 47~ Parcels 12A & 14
Our records indicate Tax Map 47, Parcel 12A contains 1.000 acre and no dwellings.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 527, page 389.
Our records indicate Tax Map 47, Parcel 14 contains 65.500 acres and no dwellings.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 527, page 389.
The most recent deed for these two parcels recorded prior to the adoption of the
ordinance, December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book 527, page 389 and is dated
April 19, 1973. This deed conveyed between 60 and 65 acres frOm Charles Wm. Hurt to
Carlo and Martha Ann Colombini. The property is described in part as containing
between 60 and 65 acres in grOss and not by the acre and designated on Tax Map 47
as Parcels 12A and 14. The deed also references a plat recorded in Deed Book 149,
I:\DEPTtBCZ~Determin of Parcel~2003 ACEt47-12A etc Colombini.doc
Carlo Colombini
January 8, 2004
Page 2
page 65 and an agreement that fixed a boundary line recorded in Deed Book 446, page
302. There have been no off conveyances since the recordation of this deed.
Based on this deed, Tax Map 47, Parcel 12A and Parcel 14 are determined to be
parcels of record. Parcel 12A has one (1) theoretical development right. It is
unlikely that this development right can be utilized because the entire parcel
appears to be in the flood plain of the Rivanna River. Parcel 14 has five (5)
theoretical development rights.
Tax Map 627 Parcel 50F
Our records indicate Tax Map 62, Parcel 50F contains 41.000 acres and no dwellings.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 618, page 107.
The most recent deed for this property recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance,
December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book 618, page 107 and is dated April 15,
1977. This deed conveyed a tract from Charlottesville Associates to Carlo Colombini,
Trustee for Red Bud Land Trust. The property is described in part as being all that
certain lot or parcel of land, containing 41.02 acres, and more particularly described as
Tract B on a plat prepared by Warren F. Wade C.L.S. dated December 26, 1968 and
recorded in Deed Book 454, page 176. There have been no off conveyances since the
recordation of this deed.
Based on this deed, Tax Map 62, Parcel 50F is determined to be a parcel of record
with five (5) theoretical development rights.
Tax Map 62, Parcel 52
Our records indicate Tax Map 62, Parcel 52 .contains 50.398 acres and no dwellings.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 780, page 670.
This analysis begins with Deed Book 600, page 515. This is a Certificate of Plat signed
on September 15, 1975. The deed references two plats by B. Aubrey Huffman and
Associates, both labeled Carlo Colombini Property, being parcel 52 on Sheet 62 and
Parcels 1C and B on Sheet 63. The deed notes that these plats replace the previous
plat by B. Aubrey Huffman dated June 7, 1966. However, only one of these plats was
actually recorded. The recorded plat shows the location of Lots 1,2 & 3 and the metes
and bounds of the residue containing 97.24 acres.
I:~DEP'r~czs~Determin of Parcel~2003 ACE~47-12A etc Colombini.doc
Carlo Colombini
January 8, 2004
Page 3
Deed Book 611, page 459 contains a Certificate of Plat dated December 30, 1976. As
noted above, the instrument recorded in Deed Book 600, page 515 included only one of
the two plats intended for recordation. The plat recorded with this certificate is labeled
The Carlo Colombini Property. The plat shows Lots 1, 2 and 3, all fronting on Route 20
and a residue containing 97.24 acres.
The preliminary plat for Redbud was approved on September 27, 1979 by the Planning
Commission. The plat by Kurt Gioeckner, dated August 20, 1979, shows twenty 2-acre
lots. The preliminary plat, as is customary, was not recordedl
Deed Book 780, page 670 contains a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions by Carlo and Martha Ann Colombini, dated October 27, 1983. The
declaration applies to 46.842 acres, containing 20 lots, shown on a subdivision plat by
GIoeckner & Lincoln attached to the Declaration. As a result of this subdivision the
residue of Parcel 52 contained 50.398 acres. There have been no off-conveyances
since the recordation of this deed.
On September 21, 1988 the zoning ordinance was amended to include the following
provision: "For purposes of this section, any lot shown on a preliminary or final
subdivision plat which was approved by the proper authority of the county in accordance
with the law prior to the adoption of this ordinance, and which plat was subsequently
recorded in due course, shall be deemed to be a lot of record at the time of the adoption
of this ordinance." Parcel 52 and the parcels comprising the Redbud Subdivision were
subject to former Section 6.5.3. This provision was not included in the wholesale
revision of the non-conforming provisions, adopted on June 14, 2000. However, these
revisions did not undo Parcel 52's status a "lot of record."
On the basis of the approval of the Redbud Subdivision Preliminary plat prior to
the adoption of the ordinance, the policy that was codified in the zoning
ordinance in section 6.5.3 and the final plat that is reCorded with this deed, it is
determined that Parcel 52 is deemed to be a parcel of record with five (5)
development rights.
These parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable
regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do
represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to
be created by dght.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
l:\DEPT~CZS\Determin of Parcel~003 AC~47-12A etc Colombini.doc
Carlo Colombini
January 8, 2004
Page 4
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies:
McChesney Goodall, Coordinator of the ACE Program
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
TM-P Acreage Division rights for 21 . Development rights
acre minimum
parcels
TM 47-12A 1.0 0 .... 1'
TM 47-14 65.5 2 5
TM 62-50F 41.0 1 5
TM 52-52 50.398 1 5
TOTAL 4 16
1:\~3EP'l'~BCZS~ete~in of Parcel~003 AC~47-12A etc Colombini.doc
FAX (434) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mcln~re Road, Room 227
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832
TTD (434) 972-4012
January 20,2004
American Environment Foundation
1937 Laskin Road
Virginia Beach, VA 23454
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 85, Parcel 40 (Property of American Environment Foundation) Section 10.3.1
Dear American Environment Foundation:
The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 85, Parcel 40 is one parcel with no (0) development rights. The basis for this
determination is summarized as follows:
Our records indicate Tax Map 85, Parcel 40 contains 182.4 acres and no dwellings. The
property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property
is recorded in Deed Book 2160, page 604.
This analysis begins with Deed Book 668, page 21, dated March 22, 1979. This deed
conveyed 416.1 acres from Martin Albert & Barbara Albert and Samuel D. Caughron to
Duntree Limited Partnership, The property is further described as Tract Number 1
shown on a plat made by T.W. Saunders dated October 1950, recorded in Deed Book
310, page 541. This is the same property that was conveyed by the deed of William N.
Evans and Edna L. Evans, dated May 15, 1978 and recorded in Deed Book 647, page
646.
Deed Book 677, page 14, dated May 31, 1979, contains a Declaration of Covenants
and Restrictions by Duntree Limited Partnership. The deed includes a plat by Higgs and
Shumate, revised April 10, 1979, entitled Section One, Miran Forest. The plat shows the
subdivision of a portion of the 416.1-acre tract into lots numbered 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11,21,
22 and 23. This plat was approved by the County on July 11, 1979.
Deed Book 689, page 731, dated February 14, 1980, contains a deed of Partial Release
by-and between Richard Reeves, Trustee, The Federal Land Bank of Baltimore, Martin
Albert & Barbara Albert, Samuel D. Caughron and Duntree Limited Partnership. The
I:\DEPT~BCZS\Determin of Parcel~003 ACE~85-40 AEF.doc
American Environment Foundation
January 20, 2004
Page 2
Trustee releases a portion of the property from the lien of a deed of trust recorded in
Deed Book 647, page 647. The property is identified as Section Two, Miran Forest on a
plat of Higgs and Shumate, dated October 10, 1979 and attached to this deed. The
property is more particularly described as Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 thru 20. The plat
notes that Section One contains 57 acres, Section Two contains 88.6 acres and the
Natural Area contains 270.5 acres. This plat was approved by the County on February
25, 1980.
The most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the
ordinance, December 10, 1980 is recorded Deed Book 700, page 16. This contains
revised plats of Section One and Section Two, Miran Forest by Higgs and Shumate.
The Section One plat was revised on August 25, 1980. Section Two was revised on
August 25, 1980. These revised plats were recorded on August 29, 1980. The plat for
Section Two notes that Section One contains 59 acres, Section Two contains 88.6
acres and the Natural Area contains 268.5 acres. On the basis of these two plats, it
is determined that the residue of the 416.1-acre tract, containing 268.5 acres is
comprised of two lots of record, separated by Sections I & 2, as defined by
Section 10.3.
Deed Book 820, page 272, dated June 23, 1984, contains a Supplemental Declaration
of Covenants and Restrictions that annexes Section Three to the agreement. Section
Three contains Lot 24, "A" Pond Parcel, "B" Forest Parcel and Front Gate, all shown on
a plat of Higgs and Shumate, dated December 21, 1983, and recorded with this
Supplemental Declaration. One development right associated with the northern portion
of the Natural Area was used to create Lot 24, one was used to create the Front Gate
parcel and three were retained by "B" Forest Parcel. All five development rights
associated with the southern portion of the natural area were allocated to "A"
Pond Parcel, containing 22.431 acres. The Residual Area, containing 182,4 acres
and the subject of this determination retained no development rights.
Deed Book 823, page 693, dated December 28, 1984, conveyed 182.4 acres from
Duntree Limited Partnership to the Shenandoah Wildlife Center. The property is
identified as "Residual Area" on the plat of Thomas Shumate, revised on February 7,
1984 that is recorded in Deed Book 820, page 273. The property was conveyed to allow
its use as a wildlife habitat and as a natural area subject to certain terms and
restrictions. The terms and conditions specified in the deed have no effect on the status
of the property as a separate parcel or on development rights.
Deed Book 1950, page 612, dated August 25, 2000, contains a Quit Claim Deed and a
Deed of Correction in which the Wildlife Center of Virginia, formerly known as the
Shenandoah Wildlife Center conveyed all of its interest in property to the Wildlife Center
of Virginia Foundation. The property is identified as the 182.4 acres designated as
I:\DEPT~CZS~etermin of Parcel~2003 AC~85-40 AEF.doc
American Environment Foundation
January 20, 2004
Page 3
Residual Area and shown on the plat by Thomas Shumate recorded in Deed Book 820,
page 278. This transaction had no effect on the status of the property as a separate
parcel or on development rights.
Deed Book 2160, page 601, dated February 1,2002, contains a Quit Claim deed in
which the Wildlife Center of Virginia, formerly known as the Shenandoah Wildlife Center
conveyed all of its interest in property to the Wildlife Center of Virginia Foundation. The
property is identified as the 182.4 acres designated as Residual Area and shown on.the
plat by Thomas Shumate recorded in Deed Book 820, page 278. The deed carries a
hand written note stating that it corrects the deed recorded in Deed Book 1950, page
612. This transaction had no effect on the status of the property as a separate parcel or
on development rights.
While this property is subject to the provisions of the above referenced deeds, the
zoning ordinance allows the creation of lots containing at least 21 acres if all other
regulations can be met.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the-date of this letter.
If you have any. questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
John Shepherd
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies:
McChesney Goodall, Coordinator of the ACE Program
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
I:\DEPT~BCZS~Determin of Parcel~2003 ACE~85-40 AEF.doc
American Environment Foundation
January 20, 2004
Page 4
TM-P Acreage Division rights for 21 Development rights
acre minimum
parcels
TM 85-40 182.4 8 0
h~)EPT',BCZS\Determin of Parcel~003 AC~85~40 AEF,doc
FAX (434) 972-4126
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Building Code and Zoning Services
401 Mclntire Road~ Room 227
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-4596
TELEPHONE I~434) 296-5832
~0~'0¢40~.
TTD (434) 972-4012
January 20,2004
Brian G. Scruby
P.O. Box 83
Greenwood VA 22943
RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS- Tax
Map 54, Parcel 72A, Tax Map 55, Parcel. 14 and Tax Map 69, Parcel 39A (Property
of Brian G. Scruby) Section 10.3.1
Dear Mr. Scruby:
The County Attorney and I h'ave reviewed the title information for the above-noted
property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that
Tax Map 54, Parcel 72A is a special lot appurtenant to Parcel 14 created for the
purpose of access. It has no development rights. Tax Map 55, Parcel 14 is a parcel of
record with five (5) theoretical development rights. Tax Map 69, Parcel 39A is a parcel
created in 1992 with two (2) theoretical development rights. The basis for this
determination is summarized as follows:
Tax Map 54i Parcel 72A
Our records indicate Tax Map 54, Parcel 72A contains 1.100:acres and no dwellings.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 1868, page 598.
Deed Book 1190, page 74, dated March 6, 1991, conveyed 1.1 acres from the
Commonwealth of Virginia to F. Bradley Peyton, III, Brian G. Scruby, Ralph E. Scruby
and Francis L. Scruby. The property is shown on the revised plans for Route 64
between Station 1734+40 and Station 1739 + 70. The zoning ordinance in effect at the
time of this transaction required that a new development lot in the Rural Areas meet
certain requirements, including a minimum area of two acres, a building site, a
development right assigned from a lot of record and County approval. This parcel meets
none of these criteria. Rather, this transaction created this parcel as a special lot, for the
express sole purpose of access for the southern portion of Parcel 14 to Route 690. This
lot is in a class with well lots, cemetery lots and other special use lots created for a
specific limited purpose.
I:\DEPT~CZS~Determin of Parcel~2003 AC~54-72A etc Brian Scruby. doc
Brian Scruby
January 20, 2004
Page 2
Deed Book1868, page 598, dated OctOber 20, 1999, conveyed 1.1 acres from Gertrude
Breckenridge Peyton, Francis Bradley peyton IV, Bayne P. RUssel, Scott B. Peyton,
individually and as Co-Executors of the Estate of F. Bradley Peyton III and as Trustees
of the F. Bradley Peyton Trust to Brian Scruby. The land is the same as was conveyed
by the deed in Deed Book 1190, page 74 and shown in the Highway Plat Book XI, page
238 for a further description. Based on the circumstances of the creation of this lot
it is determined that Tax Map 54, Parcel 72A was established for the sole purpose
of access to Route 690 and therefore, does not have a development right.
Tax Map 55~ Parcel 14
Our records indicate Tax Map 55, Parcel 14 contains 43.510 acres and one dwelling.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 1219, page 707.
Deed Book 135, page 149 contains an order, dated March 16, 1907 that partitions the
land of Mrs. Julia B. Shirley in accord with her will. The land is shown to contain 162
acres, 2 roods and 37 poles on a survey by J. R. Furguson that is attached to the deed.
The Court assigned Lot 2, containing 57- 50/160 acres to C. B. Shirley. This tract is now
identified as T.M. 55-14.
Deed Book 426, page 564, dated March 9, 1967, is a Certificate of a taking of 13.93
acres by the State Highway Commissioner from Clara G. Shirley. The taking was for the
acquisition of right of way for Route 64. The land taken is described as Parcel A
containing 13.69 acres and Parcel B containing 0.3 acres. Although the property was
physically separated by Route 64 as a result of this transaction, itwas not legally
separated. This finding i's based-on-the VirginiaSupreme Court's decision in
Chesterfield County v. Sti.qall, 262 Va, 697 (2001). Stigall requires, at a minimum,
that each lot separated by a public road must be identified on a recorded plat or
legal description as a separate lot to qualify as a lot of record as defined in
Section 10.3. Therefore, it is determined that Parcel 14 is a single parcel of record
with five (5) development rights.
Tax Map 69~ Parcel 39A
Our records indicate Tax Map 69, Parcel 39A contains 56.889 acres and no dwellings.
The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this
property is recorded in Deed Book 1785, page 244.
I:~EPT~BCZS\Determin of Parcel~.003 ACE~54-72A etc Brian Scruby.doc
Brian Scruby
January 20, 2004
Page 3
This analysis begins with Deed Book 210, page 588, dated October 15, 1930. This deed
conveyed 7 3,~ acres from C. B. Shirley and Clara G. Shirley to Ben D. Showers. The
parcel is shown on a plat that is attached to the deed. The 7.75-acre tract now is
comprised of Parcel 40 and 40A on Map 69. As a result of this off-conveyance, the
original Parcel 39 is determined to have been divided into three separate tracts.
The acreage .of these tracts is not indicated in the deed. This is in accord with the
determination by the Zoning Administrator, dated November 18, 1992, that Parcel
39 was then found to be two tracts as follows: The western parcel containing
25.318 acres and the eastern parcel containing 126.27 acres. The 7.75-acre parcel
is situated between these two tracts. It is on the basis of this deed that the
western portion of Parcel 39, now comprised of T.M. 69- 39A and T.M. 70- 33A, is
determined to be a lot of record per section 10.3.
Deed Book 1274, page 463 contains a Deed of Partition and Gift that is dated
November 12, 1992. It is between Francis Shirley Scruby & Ralph Edwin Scruby, Brian
Gray Scruby and Timothy Mark Scruby & Alice Rowe Scruby, Grantors and Grantees.
The purpose of this deed is to divide the Grantors' proportional interest in a tract that
contained 151.588 acres and was identified as Tax Map 69, Parcel 39 into clearly
defined fee simple estates. The particular parcels described in this deed are shown on
an attached plat by S. L. Key, dated November 12, 1992 and revised on November 24,
1992. The parcel is divided as follows:
94.699 acres were conveyed to Timothy Mark Scruby and Alice Rowe Scruby.
The land is described as Parcel Y containing 69.381 acres (TM 70-33A) and
Residue containing 25.318 acres (TM 69-39). The plat allocated 3 development
rights to Parcel Y and noted that the residue retained 5 development rights.
56.889 acres were conveyed to Brian Gray Scruby. The land is described as
Parcel X on S.L. Key's plat. (TM 69-39A) The plat allocated 2 development rights
to Parcel X.
The Grantors conveyed to Francis Shirley Scruby an undivided 43% interest in
the 56.889 acre tract.
The Grantors also conveyed to Ralph Edwin Scruby an undivided 51% 'interest in
the 56.889 acre tract.
As a result of this transaction, TM 70-33A had 69.381 acres and 3 development
rights. TM 69-39 had 25.318 acres and 5 development rights. TM 69-39A had
56.889 acres and 2 development rights.
I:~)EPT~BCZS\Determin of Parcel~003 ACE-~54-72A etc Bdan Scruby.doc
Brian Scruby
January 20, 2004
Page 4
These parcels are entitled to the noted development rights if all other applicable
regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do
represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty one acres allowed to
be created by right.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty days
of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of
the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final
and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the
appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120.
The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Manager of Zoning Administration
Copies:
McChesney Goodall, Coordinator of ACE Program
Gay Carver, Real Estate Department
Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors
Reading Files
TM-P Acreage DiviSiOn rights for 21 Development rights
acre minimum
parcels
TM 54-72A 1.1 0 0
TM 55-14 43.510 0 . . 5
TM 69-39A 56.889 2 2
TOTAL 106.255 2 7
Enclosed: 1980 and 2002 Tax Maps
Gift deeds that conveyed fractional ownership interests
I:~DEPT~BCZS~Determin of Parcel~003 ACE~54.72A etc Bdan Scruby.doc
,t
--I
I..-
Z
0
· !.1.1
These are deeds of gift that conveyed fractional interests in the referenced parcels.
None of these transactions had any effect on the status of these parcels or their
development rights.
Deeds in file ·
DB/p Date From To - TM/P, Percentage
1081 - 335 11/20/89 Frances S. Ralph S. 54 - 71 50%
55- 14 1/6
69-39 25%
1219 - 700 2./7/92 Ralph S. Timothy & Alice 54-71 10%
1219 - 703 2/7/92 Frances S. Timothy & Alice 54-71 10%
I525 - 216 3/20/96 Frances & Timothy & Alice 54 - 71 7.5%
Ralph
1081 - 339 11/20/89 Ralph S. Brian 55 - 14 5%
1081 - 348 11/20/89 Frances S. Brian 55 - 14 5%
1090 -284 1/25/90 Ralph S. Brian 55 - 14 5%
1090 - 287 1/25/90 Frances + Brian 55 - 14 I 5%
Ralph
1219 - 687 2/7/92 Ralph Brian 55 -14 2.67%
54 - 72A 2.67%
1219- 690' 2/7/92 Frances Brian 55-14 2.67%
54 - 72A 2.67%
1081 - 342 11/20/89 Ralph S. Timothy & Alice 69 - 39 4%
1081 345 11/20/89 Frances S. Timothy & Alice 69 - 39 4%
1090 - 290 1/25/90 Frances S. Timothy & Alice 69 - 39 4%
1219 - 694 2/7/92 Ralph S. Brian 69 - 39 1%
1219 - 697 2/7/92 Frances S. Brian 69 - 39 1%
1785 - 244 1/27/99 Frances Brian 69 - 39 5.5%
Deeds not in
file but
referenced in
1785/245
1274 - 643 11/12/92 ' - 6%
1308 643 1/2/93 7.5
1308 652 1/2/93 7.5
1385 - 286 2/10/94 6%
1385 - 289 2/10/94 6%
1458 - 318 3/9/95 6%
1458 - 327 3/9/95 6%
1525 - 210 3/20/96 6%
1525 - 213 3/20/96 6%
1591 - 482 ' 1/29/97 6%
1591 - 485 1/29/97 ?%
1672 - 608 1/22/98 ?%
i 672 - 611 1/22/98 6%
WB 92 -167 13.5%
I:\DEPT~BCZS~)etermin of Parcel~003 ACE~54-72A etc Brian Scruby.doc
i ECE VED
County of Al~rnsrle
County Executive's Office
PHILIP A. SHUCET
COMMISSIONER
January 20, 2004
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
701 VDOT WAY
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911
JAMES L. BRYAN
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Mr. Robert W. Tucker
County Office Building
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Blenheim Road (795) hard surfacing
Dear Bob,
At its January meeting, the Board of Supervisors asked me to defer issuing a permit that allows
Murcielago LLC, at its own expense, to hard surface approximately three miles of Blenheim
Road from Route 708 to Route 713 until the impacts could be evaluated more thoroughly.
Attached is the fact sheet I distributed -at the December meeting. Last week, along with county
staff, I met with a group of the neighbors in order to get their views -- and later with the
individual who wants to do the work and has offered to pay for the project.
The local neighbors' main concerns were increased travel and speed and the impact to the rural
character of the area. County staff can address the issue of "altering the rural character" of the
area better than I can; and I understand that the Board will also evaluate this issue in making its
decision whether or not to support the hard surfacing.
From a safety and cost standpoint, hard surfacing this road is in the public's best interest.
Compared to the gravel roadway, a hard surface on this roadway is safer for motorized and
bicycle traffic because of stability, visibility and width. There are no public funds associated
with its construction and the operational cost to maintain it is far less that that for the gravel road.
More traffic on 795 (and less on US 20) may result as a result of hard-surfacing because it offers
local residents more attractive travel options.
I recommend that we permit the applicant to hard surface this particular section of Blenheim
Road. Please call me if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
"---JL'B/smk
attachment
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
VDOT Fact Sheet
Proposed Improvements to Blenheim Road (Route 795)
Location
· From the Int. of Route 7'08 to the Int. Route 713 (approx. 3.7 miles)
Description.. · Currently a gravel road;
· The road is not on the Secondary Six Year Improvement Plan or Albemarle County's
Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements;
· The traffic volume for the road is approximately 50 AADT.
Developer · The owner of Mt. Pleasant Farm and several of the adjacent properties is Murcielago, LLC;
· The on-site pemon is Tom Sullivan;
· The owners have retained Tom Gale of Roudabush & Gale to develop the line drawing
plans for the improvements.
Proposal
· Propose to rebuild the section of Route 795 from the Int. of Route 708 to the Int. Route 713
(approx. 3.7 miles);
· The proposal includes providing the necessary ROW (50 feet) along their frontage and
agreements negotiated with the other property owners for easements and/or ROW to
construct the project.
· The proposal is to construct the road to current VDOT standards providing18 feet paved
riding surface with 2 feet of shoulder and 3 feet to the center of the ditchline one both sides
of the pavement surface;
· The drainage facilities are also to be updated;
· The existing 14-ton single lane bridge will be maintained and not improved with this
proposal.
Timeline
·
·
The owner is currently logging the property under his control;
The owners are in the process of installing erosion control measures to stabilize disturbed
areas to include silt fence, temporary seed and mulch, and additional stone on the
roadway;
The owners have opened the entrance to parcels #36 and #38 and are in communication
with the individual properties along the roadway;
The line drawing plans are under development and should be submitted for review this
winter;
The owner proposes to begin construction this spring and complete the work before the
end of 2004.
Process
·
County Staff has been advised of the proposal and will be included on the plan
development and review process.
The proposed improvements if approved will be built and inspected under permits issued
through VDOT.
i
February 2004
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 en~ineerin~ 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 &
P~MARY ROADS
o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim,
signs, patrols
o ROADWAY: grade, pave, patch
o EMERGENCY OPS
o REPAIR & BUILD BRIDGES
ASSESSMENT
(see legend below)
(A)
REMARKS
- Replaced damaged bridge rail
Rt 20 bridge
Deck repairs on Rt 628 bridge
0 MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT
ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued)
TASK
2. MANAGE CONSTRUCTION
PROGRAM
o PE Activities
ASSESSMENT REMARKS
(see legend below)
® (G)
Airport Road, Rt 649, advertised
for construction. Bid due 2/25/04
o Project Construction
ESSENTIAL TASK__S (continued)
Task
3. CONDUCT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
Assessment
(See legend below)
®(G)
Remarks
o Issue and review permits
o Review site plans and rezoning request
o Conduct studies and advise
o Inspect and monitor subdivisions
- 35 land use permits issued
- 7 Revised plans reviewed &
comments provided as needed
- 5 new site plans reviewed
- 10 Special Use Permits
reviewed & comments provided
- 8 developments in planning stages
- I Rezonings reviewed
- 4 subdivision plan reviews
- 2 subdivisions inspected for
acceptance
-1 subdivision accepted
ESSENTIAL TASKS (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
- 10 Traffic issues submitted
- 8 Traffic issues outstanding
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING
February 2004 Albemarle County Six-Year Plan Project Status
Primary Projects
Route PPMS Designer ProjectNumber Descriptiou Scoph~g Survey Review P.H. h~spect. R/W Adv. Comments
53 18897 BAA 0053~002-IOI, B60i B;idgeRePiacenieiit~Bucklslandcreek ~ ~~ ~~ 0i~04 9104 OnSchedule (UPdated9-O3)
Widening pave Shoulder
20 60395 BAA 002-002-129,N501 Rte, 20 N Various Locations ~ N/A N/A N/A N/A WA 1-04 On Schedule (Updated 09-03)
Widening pave Shoulder
250 60396 BAA 0250-002-117,N501 Rte250EVariousLocations ~ ~ ~)A N)A NiA 'N)A N)A 1,04 0nsChedUie(uPdaied09:03)
Seconda
Airport Road Advertised
649 2456 SI.M O649-O02-k58,C501 4-t ...... /sidewalks &bike lanes ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ iuPdat~doi~04)
Jarman Gap Rd Public Mtg.Comments submitted
691 11129 DWS O691-O02-1581C5OI 2-lanes w/bike la .... &sidewalk ~ ~ ~~ t; ~;ttlltyi(uPd~d i0 0~i
Mchtire Rd. Ext. NewAligument On schedule for advertisement
631 2530 BAA 0631-O02-128,C502 MeadowCreekParkway ~ ~ ~ ~04 8-05 6-06 6-08 (Updated IO-03)
Free State Rd. Connector !9 M0;h~a~!ivity
-- 52393 JWH ROO0-002-259,C501 Coustmct 2 lanes on 4-lane R/W (Updated '0-02) __
Gravel Roads
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERANG
February 2004 Greene County Six Year Plan Project Status Secondary Projects ..............
Field Field
Route PPMS Designer Project Description Scope Survey Review P.H. Insp. R/W Adv. Comments
Bacon HollowRoad Widen and straighten 2-lane roadway
627 51022 RDL 0627-039-195,C501 Fr. Rte, 615 to Rte 632 II~~ ~ ~ 6-04 11-05 (uDOateO §-03)
Gravel Roads
0.35 Mi. E. Rte 6t9 Widen and Surface Treat -Gravel Road
618 64173 0618-002-P 57,N501 Orange Co. Line I/~~~~~~ Contract Awarded (updated 1-04)
Watson Road Widen and Surface Treat- Gmvelroad
640 2515 0640-039-137,N501 Fr. Rte,633 to DeadEnd 11-03 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A tt-05 (updated 10-03)
CONSTRUCTION
PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 04 Percent
Street Name Project Description Complete Contract
Dec Jan Feb Mar Cost
V~ri~S Int. in U000-104-114,C501 Traffic Signalization 35 35
the City of Remarks: Contractor plans to begin signal pole foundations
Charlottesville depending on weather.
Mountain Vista 0737-002-Pe8,N501 ]Secondary Rd Improvement ~~ ~ ~ 90 90
Remarks: Plan to complete all work minus paving by end of
December. Paving will be scheduled in the spring.
Scottsville Road (NFO)0020-002-126, C501, B608 ]Bridge over Hardware River ...... ~~ ~ ~ 0 0
Remarks: Contractor plans to pour foundation for south side
bridge abutment during January.
Mayo Road 0650~039-P56,N501 ]Secondary Rd Improvement ¥ ¥ ~ ¥ 90 90
Remarks: Plan to complete all work minus paving by end of
December. Paving will be scheduled in the spring.
Various Sec. PM-7B-03 I Asphalt Overlay _ ~ ~ ~ ¥ 95 95
~nd Primary Remarks: Paving Rts 623 & 633 in Greene Co. postponed until
Roads spring.
Dyke Road 0810-039-146, C501 ]'Secondary Rd. Improvement ~ ~ ~¥ 0 0
Remarks: Contractor has procured a staging area; will be
installing construction signs; begin clearing if weather permits
Pr MOWING
Pr 1 PATCHING
Pr 2 GRADE/MACHINE/ ADD
STONE
Pr 3 DITCH/PIPE
MAINTENANCE
Yancey Mills Headquarters
JANUARY
Clean s~,~o~4__~e,:q,~me~'~t and s~ock
None
Rts 64, 250, 29, 635
Rts 637, 633, 634, 689, 811, 611
Rt 745
Goa~:
None
FEBRUARY
Pa utes
Rts 64 29 691 684
Rts 702, 745, 683, 637, 689
Rt 633
Pr 6 GUARDRAIL/ MOWING Rts 635, 637
Pr 5 GUARDRAIL REPAIR
Pr 4 EQUIP MAINT
Pr EMERGENCY OPS
Pr 7 OTHER
Rts 29, 64
PER SCHEDULE
Snow events 1/8; 1/14; 1/17; 1/25
Remove dead trees Rts 708, 633
Rts 29, 689, 708, 691
Rts 29, 64
PER SCHEDULE
Repair shoulders Rts 64, 250
MOWING
~>r 4 PATCHING
~C ~.... GRADF_JMACHI NE/
ADD STONE
~r 2 DITCH/PIPE
Pr GUARDRs/~I L/ MOWING
~i~ GUARDRAI L REPAIR
EQUIP MAINT
P/r- EMERGENCY CPS
OTHER
MAINTENANCE
Free Union Headquarters
January
'Tree arid Debris Re~'~ova#
Brush Removal -Rts 614, 810, 1390. 1322, 1002
Clear Rivanna Lot
Spot Patching - Rts 743, 810, 606, 601. 1403. 660,
250, 674
677. 671 ,665,
Rts 662, 674, 667, 673, 821
Cleaned drains - Rts 614, 1452, 662
February
Mowing Complete
Tree/Brush Removal - Rts 810, 665, 743
(3000 Block)
Spot Patch As Needed
Shoulder Repair - Rts 250, 601, 654
Machine and Add Stone - Rts 606, 643,
661, 662, 673, 675, 756, 766, 776, 671,
668, 678
Clean and Repair Drains - its 662, 671,
609
Rt 810 Complete
Rt. 614 Complete
Snow Equipment Repair and Cleanup
Icy Roads - 29 @ Berkshire
Snow Event - 1/8- 1/10
Snow Event - 1/14
Snow EMent ~ 1/17 - 1/18
Snow Event - 1/25 - 1/27
Trash Removal -Pt 606
Stocking Stone
Repair Washout w/RipRap -Pt 614
Traffic Control - Bridge Crew - Rt 29
Pipe Inspection - Rt 29
Per Schedule
Septics Snow Equipment and Repair
Customer Concerns
Good Housekeeping
Pr 3 MOWING
Pr ~ PATCHING
Pr' # GRADE/MACHINE/ADD
STONE
Pr 8 DITCH/PIPE
Pr 2GUARDRAIL/ MOWING
Pr' 9 GUARDRAIL REPAIR
Pr 5 EQUIP MAINT
Pr 7 EMERGENCY OPS
Pr ¢ OTHER
MAINTENANCE
Keene Headquarters
January
Cutting Rights-of-Way Rts 795, 627, 29
Patching (Pot Holes) Rts. 638, 727, 795, 840
February
Day Light Signs - Rt 6
Cutting Rights-of-Way Rts 627,717, 795
Patching (Pot Holes) Rt. 729
Repair Shoulders-(Mail boxes)- Rts.800, 602, 630
795,
Machine & Add Stones Rts. 724, 633, 631, 712,
722, 723, 761, 708, 728, 795
Pipe Rt. 620
None
None
Tires,
Snow events 1/8; 1/14; 1/17; 1/25
Clean Equipment
Traffic Control Rt. 20 Scottsville Bridge,
Stocking Materials (Sand,Salt,C.Cholride)
Repair Shoulders-(Mail Boxes)-
Rts. 630, 670
Machine & Add Stone Rts. 674, 722,
717, 712, 795, 678, 813, 711, 708, 728,
761, 713, 714, 704, 627
None
Guard Rail Mowing Rt. 20
None
As Needed
Traffic Control Rts. 20, 29
Stocking Materials (Sand,Salt,C.Cholride)
MAINTENANCE
Boyd Tavern Headquarters
January February
utes a~d ,~ff,~t~ch work
Pr 3 MOWING/Brush cutting
Pr ~ PATCHING
Pr 2 GRADE/t~IACHINE/ ADD
STONE
None
Rts 1340, 641, 769
Rts 646, 612, 608, 600, 746, 744, 640
Rt 64
Rts 64, 231, 600
Rts 700, 747, 784, 641
Pr' 4 DITCH/PIPE
Pr G UARDI~_AI L/ MOWING
Rts 640, 744, 600, 747, 649
None
Pr GUARDR/~..I L REPAIR None
Rts 731, 762, 1120, 819, 741
None
None
Pr EQUIP MAINT
Pr EMERGENC'f OPS
Pr OTHER
Clean equipment
Snow & Ice Control (1-9 thru 1-12)
(1-25 thru 1-30-04)
Brush cutting Rt 631
Shoulder Repair Rt 250
As needed
Maintenance
STANARDSVILLE HEADQUARTERS
January February
All ~oals were met ?00%'~ exc e Goa#: Patch potholes fO0% on
Pr MOWING None None
Pr 2 PATCHING
Patched pot holes on Rts 33, 29, 33, 230
Patch holes on secondary and primary as
needed
Pr ~ GRADE/MACHINE/ ADD
STONE
Pr'3 DITCH/PIPE
Graded & replaced stone on Rts 636, 639, 603, 601,
638, 634, 635, 640, 618, 806, 643
Completed shoulder work on turn lanes Rts 622 & 623
also lines were painted on turn lanes.
Replaced pipe on Rt. 633 (separated)
Grade and replace stone on Rts 618, 638,
614, 626, 630, 627, 629, 634, 676, 605
Replace pipe on Rts 642, 626
Pr ,4 GUARDRAIL/ MOWING
Pr 7 GUARDRAIL REPAIR
Pr 5 EQUIP MAINT
Pr G EMERGENCY OPS
Pr OTHER
Long arm mower on Rt.621 & 667
To be repaired by Makco Rt.29 north
Clean & repair snow equipment as needed.
Snow removal
Tree & brush cutting on primary Rt.29
Repairs to be made by Makco Rt. 33 Mt.
As scheduled
Slide repairs on Rt.33 Mt.
AREA HQ
EQUIPMENT ITEM
YAN CEY MILLS
Trucks 8
Loaders 1
Grader 2
Tractor mowers 4
Rollers 1
FREE UNION
Trucks 7
Loaders 1
Backhoe 1
Tractor mowers 3
Rollers 2
Graders 2
BOYD TAVERN
Trucks 7
Loader 1
Rollers 1
Tractor r-nowers 4
Graders 1
KEENE
Trucks 7
Loaders 2
Backhoes 1
Tractor rnowers 4
Rollers 2
Graders 2
STANARDsvI LLE
Trucks 7
Loaders 1
Graders 2
Tractor mowers 4
Chippers 1
Rollers 1
Bridge Crew
;Trucks 4
Loaders I
Legend:
C;¢eo~: 90- 100% Excellent
[~e~l: 70-80% Needs improvement
Equipment
POSSIBLE # OF # DAYS IN THE
DAYS SHOP
OP EIC~TI 0 NAL
# DAYS
OPERATIONAL
(COLOR)
248 7
31 0
62 0
124 0
31 0
217 19
31 0
31 43
93 0
62 0
62 0
217 15
31 0
31 0
124 0
31 0
217 23
62 0
31 0
124 0
62 0
62 0
217 19
31 0
62 49
124 0
31 0
31 0
124 3
31 0
241
31
62
124
31
198
31
-12
93
62
62
202
31
31
124
31
194
62
31
124
62
62
198
31
13
124
31
31
121
31
97.18% Green
100.00°/o Green
100.00% Green
100.00% Green
100.00% Green
91.24% Green
100.00% Green
-38~ 71% Black
100.00% Green
100.00% Green
100.00% Green
93.09% Green
100.00% Green
100.00% O reeD
100.00% Green
100.00% Green
89.40% Anlber
100.00% Green
100~ 00% Green
100.00% Green
100.0°0/0; Green
100, 00% Green
91.24% Green
100j00% Green
20.97°/0 Black
100.00°/0 Green
100.00% Green
i00.00% Green
97.58% Green
100,00% Green
80-90% Good, room for improver~lent
;Black: Below mini~*num standards
AREA HEADQUARTERS
PERSONNEL
AUTHORIZED/
ASSIGNED
LAST MONTH'S NEXT MONTH'S
ABSENT DAYS APPROVED LEAVE
JANUARY DAYS =_E
Mills 4
1/1 3
Maintenance Supervisors 211 17 -- 0
11/11 12 4
~erators
Free Union I 0
~ent 1/1
Maintenance Supervisors 2/2 3 0
;rators 11 / 10 16 0
Tavern 0
~rintendent 1/1 2
~intenance Supervisors 212 3 0
I O/9 6 8
~'ne o o
;dntendent 1/1
Maintenance Supervisors 2/2 5 2
~erators 12/12 28 2
Stanardsville 0 0
ltendent 1/1
Maintenance Supervisors 2/2 2 0
12/12 30 0
l eISig n Crews VACANT
:rintendent 1/0 VACANT
Maintenance Supervisor 1/1 2
7/4 ~20 0
~rators
Shop Supervisor 1/1 0 0
Mechanics 4/3 3 0
PLANNING
Project
Traffic Traffic Site
Study Study Plan
Scoping Review Review
C u rre nt Status
Albemarle Towne Center
(Sperry)
Peter Jefferson/Martha
Jefferson Site
Rivanna Village at
Glenmore
North Pointe
Hollymead
Pantops Ridge
Moore
Brass Tract
Awaiting site plan
Awaiting site plan.
Waiting for proffers to be submitted for comment. Conceptual site
plan under review.
Comments on proffers submitted to County Staff.
Initial road design plan comments sent to County Staff.
VDOT and County staff are exploring alternative access solutions for
the site.
Comments on traffic study submitted to County Staff.
VDOT and County staff are reviewing previous submissions.
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Traffic Engineering .Issues Under Review: Albemarle
Route Location Issue Type Received Description
Reviewer
20 2479 Stoney Point Guardrail 01/06/04 Guardrail Study Culpeper TED
20 Various Signage 07/23/03 Directional signage for James River Culpeper TED
626 6 Pvmt Markings 11/21/03 Stop Bar Requested Culpeper TED
710 From Route 29 to Route 696 Speed 9/16/03 Speeding Culpeper TED
743 At intersection with Rock Store Pvmt Markings 11/5/03 Pavement Marking Review Culpeper TED
1251 Various (Western Ridge) Signage 10/28/03 Child at Play signs Culpeper TED
TranCe Engineering Issues Under Review: Greene
Route Location Issue Type Received Description Reviewer
670 Preddy Creek Subdivision Guardrait 01/06/04 Guardrail Study Culpeper TED
633 Rt 633 Speed 01/14/04 Speed reduction study Culpeper TED
607 Rt 607 Speed 01/14/04 Speed reduction study Culpeper TED
33 At Rt 633 Traffic Light 01/14/04 Intersection study Culpeper TED
ISSUES
Blenheim Road (Route 795)
CO~Y OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Bob Tucker, County Executive
FROM:
Mark B. Graham, Director of Community Development
DATE: 2 February 2004
Rt. 795, Blenheim Road
This memo is to provide an update on Route 795 status. I apologize :for getting this to you just before
the Board meeting, but I wanted to have the status as current as possible for the Board meeting.
County's position - We have issued a stop work order for the road disturbance. VDOT has not issued a
permit for this disturbance and we determined it was not aa exempted activity under the County's Water
Protection Ordinance. Two activities, are not included in this stop work order. First, as required by the
stop work order, the farm owner is installing erosion and sediment control measures, including temporary
seeding and mulch, along the road. We have determined this is appropriate for reducing the
environmental damage that has occurred. Second, there are land disturbing activities occurring on the
farm. We have determined this is converting woodlands to pasture and is exempted under the County's
Water Protection Ordinance. Along this same line, we have also determined the clearing of trees on the
farm was exempted, even where this activity followed the road alignment. Thus, removing the trees on
the farm along the road's right of way does not require a County permit, but grading along the road right
of way requires a permit, either from VDOT or the County. If the farm owner makes an erosion control
permit application to the County for grading his property along the road frontage and that application
meets all of the County requirements, staffwould have no basis for denying the permit. Grading within
the prescribed right of way will require a permit from VDOT rather than a County permit.
VI)OT's position - Jim Bryan has indicated that VDOT would prefer this road to be improved and
paved, as'this would reduce maintenance costs and make it a safer road for vehicles. When asked about
whether this road would be eligible for the Rural Rustic Road program, Jim has indicated this road would
not qualiby because of anticipated traffic vOlumes once improved. There has been some discussion of
alternative pavement surfaces that have been used on an experimental basis in other parts of the state. The
other residents along the road have expressed interest in this type of surface. To date, we do not know
VDOT's position on the alternative pavements Thus, at present, VDOT's desirable road section would
include improvements to the road alignment and cross-section to allow a design speed to be maintained
(35 mph design has been mentioned), an 18' pavement width, and dedication ora 50' right of way where
the road goes through the farm. Finally, Jim has indicated he will issue a permit for this road project if
the County places this road on the six year road list. The unanswered question is what happens to the
current road if the County does not put this road on its list. The existing road has been damaged by the
construction activity and will require significant work to bring it back to the preexisting condition.
VDOT has not indicated what they will do in that situation.
Resident's position - Staff met with the residents in January and determined they were strongly opposed
to improvemerit of this road. Given the road has been disturbed and requires rehabilitation, the residents
did express interest in alternative road surfaces that could resemble a gravel road while reducing the dust.
VDOT is investigating this option. The residents uiaderstand that farm owner has the right to remove
the trees and grade his property. Thus, much of the .road's character the residents want to maintain was
never part of the public property.
In summary, I would say the following are the important starting points for any discussion:
The residents would like to see as much of the road's character restored as possible, but
understand much of this character is associated with private property versus public right of way.
· VDOT believes an improved road is consistent with their mission of providing safe and
convenient roads for the motoring public.
· VDOT wants to see agreement from the County that this road should be improved before issuing
a permit for the work.
· If VDOT does not issue a permit for the work, VDOT needs to find some way of repairing
damage that has occurred as a result of the land disturbance.
Cci
Tom Foley, Asst. County Executive
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
Juandiego Wade, Transportation Planner
Mt. Pleasant Farm
593! Blenheim Road
Scottsville, VA 24590
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Jim Bryan (VDOT) ~oaqdk~ iqad6
Thomas H. Sullivan
January 30, 2004
Route 795 Improvements
! ~¥ish to improve an approx/mately three mile section of Route 795 fronting my farm in
Albemarle County. It is my understanding th.at the Albemarle County.. Board of
Supervisors will be gathering information on this project during the Board of Supervisors
meeting on Wednesday, February 4, 2004. Enclosed in anticipation of the this meeting,
please find the f0!low~/ng material:
1. Letter from me regard/rig the desired improvements to Route 795;
2. Executed Petition of Support from local res/dents; and
3. Map indicating the location of my property and of those residents for and against
the project (please note that the parcel numbers next to each residents name
represent their approximate location along the roadside').
Please note that in addition to Blenheim Road residents, the petition also has the signed
support of the Scottsville Postmaster, the mail carp~er who delivers on the unpaved
section of Route 795 and the local school bus dr/ver.
! am also delive~fng to Juandiego Wade, JLm Bg:an at VDOT and the Board of
Superv/sors Chairman, Lindsay Dorrier, a completed survey of the unpaved section of
Route 795 for their review prior to the meeting done by Roudabush, Gale and Associates.
I wilt be in attendance at the February 4th meeting with the Roudabush engineers to
answer any questions you may have. tn addition, please do not hesitate to contact me at
703~625-1553 or Kimberly Atk/ns at 617-283-6177 if you have any q~estions or require
additional information.
Mt. Pleasant Farm
5931 Blenheim Road
Scottsville, VA 24590
January 29, 2004
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: Route 795
Ladies and Genflemem
My farm encompasses more than 4,000 acres with more than.six miles of frontage along
both sides of Route 795 between Route 708 and Route 618: I have invested millions of
dollars into the local economy improving this historic property, employing as many as 30
people, but despite these efforts my ability to enjoy my farm with my wife and three
young children have been frustrated by the condition of the unpaved section of Route 795
which fronts my farm for five miles.
The abandoned nature of this stretch of Route 795 encourages illegal hunting and illegal
dumping of old cars, appliances, tires and other trash in the roadside overgrowth. More
importantly the dust, overgrown trees and brash, blind curves, lack of shoulders and wash
board, rotted and unstable surfaces make it im,mssible to see or navigate around
oncoming traffic mating an incredibly dangerous condition on this particular Stretch of
795; one that my family, residents, farm workers, mail carriers and school bus drivers
are forced to deal with on a daily basis.
I initially approached the county to discuss .improving the rOad and was d'nv. cted to speak
with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). I was informed by both the
county and VDOT that the stretch of Route 795 was not considered a priority due to the
lack of available funding. At about this time massive logging activity rendered the road
impassable leaving me with no option but to approach VDOT with a plan to improve the
road using my own funding. The plan we developed with VDOT, outlined below, was
designed to address three major safety concerns; visibility, surface condition and
shoulders.
V'mibility Problen~
The existing road had only 12 to14 feet of clearance
between heavy tree growth, no shoulders and multiple blind
cxu'ves. Creating hazardous driving conditions and
encouraging' '_illegal activity.
Solution:
Remove overgrowth on either side of Route 795 (on my
road frontage) and regrade to soften curves and to increase
Surface
Condition'
Shoulders
Problem:
Solution
Problem:
Solution:
visibility for oncoming traffic.
Dust, md, flooding, potholes and washboard surface
impaired visibility and vehicle control and greatly hampered
maintenance efforts:
Treating the road surface with the same tar and chip process
as the rest of Route 795 would improve vehicle traction and
maintenance efforts.
The lack of shoulders leaves drivers and pedestrians with no
recourse when faced with oncoming traffic. Lack of
drainage ditches results in hazardous mad flooding.
Regrading to create useable shoulders allows drivers,
pedestrians and horseback ridders to actually use the mad
without fear. Creating drainage ditches creates a predicable
water drainage pattern to prevent flooding and
environmentally hazardous erosion and sediment flow
With respect to all of the work done to date, we have worked closely with VDOT and
have, in good faith, performed all of the work with a.primary goal of addressing all state
and e~tvironmental concerns raised by VDOT as the work progressed. Those neighbors
'directly affected by these improvem~ ents were notified of our efforts and encouraged us to
proceed.
After the project began a small group of neighbors largely removed from the project's
location raised three princ'.lpal concerns in connection with improving the road;
increased traffic,, increased speeding and increased development. In response to their
concerns I met with each and attempted to address their concerns.
Increased
Traffic Concern:
Route 795 will become a Charlottesville to Scottsville cut
through.and will increase from the current 40 cars a day to
800 cars a day virtually overnight.
Response:
Route 20 is the principal route between Charlottesville and
Scottsville, with a speed limit of 55 IvI1PI-I in most instances.
Rome 795 is both two miles longer and has an average
speed limit of 30 MPH with several stop signs, sharp curves
and a one lane bridge creating an average commute time
more than double that of Route.20 during rush hour. VDOT
engineers believe road i ,mFxovements to Rome 795 will
result in only a marginal increase in traffic largely relating
to use by local neighbors.
2
Increased
Speeding
Con¢orIE
Impr~ oving this section of Route 795 will result in increased
speeding.
In~
Development
Response:
ConCern:
While speeding occurs now., the road improvement plan will
maintain curves and a one lane bridge~which should
continue to minimize speeding. The traffic division of the'
Albemarle CoUnty Police Department has suggested three
options to further control speeding: (1) an automated traffic
warning sign, (2) enhanced po~lice presence at residents
request and (3) designated police presence through their
private subsidization progran~
Improving this section of Route 795 will result in massive
residential development.
Response:
No such mass development has occurred along the
remaining 90% of Route 795 that is currently paved. More
importantly, development issues are better addressed by
existing zoning laws and' should not be used as a platform to
prevent the improvement of a hazardous road.
While ail agree the road is treacherous, those concerned about i~ oving the road believe
the ris~k of maintaining the road in its hazardous condition outweighs the risk of increased
traffic, speeding and development..Interestingly, however, these individuals are not
primary users of the road.
While, no community wants to see a familiar landscape altered, often cir6umstances
beyond our control require that chan4ges be made. In this instance, the existing traffic and
road conditions warrant changes m improve the safety for its principal users. I believe
the risk of slightly increased traffic is outweighed by the numerous benefits to the public
as follows:
Increased road visibilitY permits drivers to see pedestrians and other oncoming
vehicles and avoid collisions or other potential accidents
Tar surface treatment allows vehicles to stop quicker and easier than the
current dirt/gravel surface thereby avoiding skidding off the road, collisions
and other potential accidents
Tar surface treatment enables us toplan and maintain a predicable water
drainage pattern to prevent flooding and environmentally hazardous erosion
and sexliment flow
Wide grassed shoulder allows pedestrian and recreational use previously
prohibited by the overgrowth along the roadside
Wide grassed shoulder discourages illegal: dumping of appliances, cars, tires
and trash which residents hid in the overgrowth along the roadside
I am concerned enough about Route 795's current condition that I have offered to.take on
an expensive project to assure the road is made safe for my family and the community. I
would like to reiterate that improved safety, not development, is the primary goal of this
project. I would ask that the county please consider our demonstrated commitment to the
neighborhood' s character and safety when reviewing this issue and not permit this small
project to improve road safety io become a platform for neighbors to speak out against
development in Albemarle County.. Neighbors who, in many instances, already have the
benefit of paved road frontage.
I understand it is now up to the county and/or state to determine whether they should take
advantage of this opportunity and I want to thank you for your time and attention to this
matter.
cc: Chuck Proctor, VDOT
Murclelago, LLC
5931 Btenl~im Road
Scottsville, VA 24590
MEMORANDUM
TO: Residents of Blenheim Road
FROM: Thomas Sullivan
DATE: January 14, 2004
RE: Paving of Route 795
As you may know, we wish to pave the three mile stretch of Route 795 from Secretary's
Road to the entrance of my property at Mt. Pleasant Farm Road. While the ,state is ia
support of the project, certain residents have raised their opposition with the county
which may delay or prevem the project from occnn~g. If you are in favor of the paving
project, we would appreciate your signature to this memorandm to show your support.
We intend to present this to the county Board of Supervisors at a meeting tonight where
we will discuss the paving with the county and state.
I'have provided a brief summary of our current plans with respect to the road for your
review' below. Thank you in advance for your support.
ROUTE 795 PAVING
Our primary reason for wanting the three mile stretch of Route 795 paved is to create a
safer road passage through our neighborhood. The flooding, poor visibility, choppy road
surface and increased deterioration by Westvaco's logging trucks have created hazardous
conditions which we are all forced m deal with on a daily basis. The overgrowth of trees
along the roadSide made it impossu~ble to see oncoming cars and pedestrians and provided
little or no shoulder for pedestrians to walk on In addition, the current gravel/dirt road
surface makes it difficult to for vehicles to stop quickly. These factors coupled with the
speed of the cars create a very unsafe environment.
Our current paving.plan for Route 795 will alleviate each of the above safety issues while
preserviag the mml character of the area as much as poss~le. VDOT is only requiring
the minimum road width of 18 feet and that two sharp curves on the road be soft~ned but
not straightened. Otherwise the road layout will be left uutouchexk We have already
removed 20 feet of growth on either side'of Route 795 to increase driver and Pedestrian
visibility and add a much needed side space for pedestrians and horseback riders. The 20
feet along either side wilt be grassed in the spring and create what I hope to be a quiet
country road through the woods where drivers can see oncoming cars and pedestrians
have a grassy space to walk or~ I believe the cleared roadside will also discourage the
illegal dumping of appliances, cars, tires and other trash which has previously been
hidden in the overgrowtk In addition, the paved surface enables.Us to plan and main~
a predicable Water drainage pattern to prevent flooding and environmentally hazardous
erosio~ and sediment flow~
Since we began clearing the roadside, we have worked.closely with the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) to address any enviromental or other concerns
identified by VDOT as the work progressed. We have also tried to Performthe work
quickly aud efficiently and hope this has minimized the disturbance to the residents along
We, the undersigned res{dents of Blemheim Road, support the paving of-~e
approxknately th~ee m/de section of Route 795 bom Secretary's Road to Mt. Pteasartt
Farm Road.
Contact t·
Name Address Information 1 Signature
i
t
Keith Shiffiet
5931 Bleahe~m Road
Sco~tsville, VA 42590
January 30, 2004
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, VA
Re: Route 795 Road Improvements
Ladies and Gentlemen:
t am writing this letter to show my support for the paving of the section of Route
795 between Secretary's Road and Mt. Pleasant Farm Road.
I grew up in the Scottsville area and currently reside along the unpaved section of
Route 795 with my wife and small child. I experience the treacherous conditions along
that stretdh of road on a daily basis~ The road serves as access to Scottsville for the local
neighbors and the poor conditions prevent my wife and I from driving into Scottsville to
access stores and restaurants without feeling like we are putting our child at risk.
In addition, for the local neighbors, paving this small section of Route 795 would
provide a safer alternative to access Route 20 and therefore may alleviate some local
traffic on Route 713, another dangerous, unpaved roadway which local neighbors
curren~tly use to access Route 20. I have spoken with residents along Route 713and they
are all in favor of paving the small section of Route 795 in hopes of decreasing the use of
Route 713, where they experience the same problems as Route 795 with respect to poor
road surface and poor .visibility
For these reasons expressed aboye, I enthusiastically support the paving project to
make the mad safer.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Please contact me at
434-531-4057 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Keith Shifflet
petermellen
Mount Ayr Fa~m~. 6200 Blenheim Road - Seottsvitle · VA 24590
David Wyant
4686 Garth Road
Crozet, VA 22932
January 27, 2004
Dear David,
I am writing to express my objection to Mr. Sullivan paving a three-mile section of
Route 795. What concerns me about this project is that it goes against every guiding principle
outlined in the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan for Rural Areas:
The proposed road improvement is not a priority and is not on the County Six
Year Plan, nor does it fit the criteria to be placed on this plan. This section of
the road has less than 50 trips per day, is not used by school buses, and has not
had any major accidents. The one fatality on795 occurred dose to Scottsville
on apaved road. To fast track it to the Six Year Plan (especially when it is not
needed) detracts from the entire planning process.
The Comprehensive Plan suggests that "country roads should maintain their rural
character, even when changes are made to them." This section of Route 795 is now
used for local traffic only and is a quiet country road. Once the road is paved to
VDOT specifications, it will be able to handle up to 800 vehicles per day. This will
irreversibly destroy the rural character of this area.
If the road is widened and paved, it will have a snowball.effect, requiring
VDOT to replace the picturesque one-lane bridge over the Hardware River,
which now has a 7 ton limit. Once the bridge is replaced, the road will be
accessible t_o heavy logging and gravel trucks, further deteriorating the rural
quality of the area.
Page 46 of the Comprehensive Plan states that secondary roads "should not be
designated or designed to become the impetus for growth corridors." It is
important to remember that Route 795 parallels Route 20 and provides an
alternate route to Charlottesville. The reason it is not used by commuters now is
because it is a narrow dirt road. Once the road is widened and paved it will
become the impetus for a new growth corridor and future development. This is
exactly what the plan is designed to prevent.
The Comprehensive Plan suggests design standards that protect environmentally
sensitive areas. If the road is widened on the south side of the Hardware River, it
protected, Unfortunately a significant mount of wildlife habitat has:already been
destroyed in clearing for this road. The Board should require that the public right-
of-way be restimted and planted with indigenous .native species, rather than grass.
If the road is widened and straightened it will go against the recommendation that
rural roads should have the minimum travel width necessary for safety. By
widening and straightening the road, vehicles will be able to travel at far greater
speeds, making the road less safe than the existing road. increased traffic will
open up the possibility of more serious accidents on what is now a safe road.
The intention of the Comprehensive Plan is to protect a rural way of life. This
section Of 795 now forms an integral part of the neighborhood, with neighbors
using the road to travel up and down on horseback, on bicycles, on foot, and
even with horse and buggy. If permission is given to widen and pave the road,
this neighborhood quality of life will disappear forever.
Although the widening and paving of three miles of road may appear to be a minor
issue, it has far-reachiag implications for the future development of Albemarle CoUnty. For
these reasons I urgently request that the Board consider this alternative:
Preserve the existing dirt road and treat the surface with a road-bind product, such
as ligno-sulfonate. This roadbase stabilization product has been successfully used
in Loudoun County and elsewhere for years, It produces a hard, dust free surface
that is more skid resistant than gravel, and therefore safer, Because it still has the
feel ora dirt road, vehicles are less likely to speed. Studies have shown that
lignins, which are derived from pulp products, are non-toxic and environmentally
safe. This treatment provides many of the benefits of paving at a fraction of the
cost. Maintenance costs are also reduced, making it less costly to maintain than a
dirt road. Several local residents have gone to Loudon County to see roads treated
with ~s product. They spoke to neighbors who live along the road as well as
members of the Board of Supervisors. All of them were highly enthusiastic about
the results of this product.
This altemative to paving offers a solution that will satisfy everyone concerned. Mr.
Sullivan will have a road that is safe and dust-free; those who oppose the paving will be happy
not to have a highway running through this quiet rural area;' the County will have a solution that
supports all the work that has gone into the Comprehensive Plan; VDOT will be praised for its
forward-thinking and environmentally-friendly policy; and those who support the paving will
als0 get what they want - a dust-free road!
Sincerely,
phone - 434286 3698 fax 434 286 2326 · emait petermellen~msn, com
StoP. the Paving of 795
The Issues
Environmental
Many himd~ed-year-old trees will' be cut down for widening between the bridge
and GlendoWer Road
· Hedgerows and wildlife habitat have already been destroyed and need to be'
resfi~ted
· The ravine and creek on south side o£the Hardware River will be torn up if the
road is widened
· A wider, straighter road will have a permanent impact oh the rural quality of the
landscape .
Traffic
· .Route 795 will become a shortcut to Charlottesville, providing an alternative to Hwy 20
· Traffic will go from 40 trips per day to more than 800 trips per day
·Higher traffic will mean replacing the bridge, opening it to gravel and logging
trucks
· The increased traffic and higher speeds will make the road more daxigerous, rather
than safer
· The increased traffic will have an impact on other parts of 795, from Seott'sville
all the way to Charlottesville
Historical
-· The historic one lane bridge over the Hardware River will be replaced if the road
is built, It is one of the few remaining single-lane bridges left in Virginia
· Paving the road will irrevocably alter.one of the last unspoiled rural areas
Albemarle coUnty
· This area is in rich in history, going ba6k to when Jefferson rode through it over
two hundred years ago. The road has changed little Over that time and deserves to
' be'~f'ege~d as ~'~--i~iral road
Quality of Life · Integrity of this rural neighb0rhood will be compromised
· It will no longer be possible to walk, ride hor~es, or bicycle down Blenheim Road
without ris ,k/rig one's life
· What is now a'quiet rural road will become a noisy highway With a constant
stream of cars.and trucks
Development ~
· A paved road opens up the possibility for future developmer[,t in the area
.· There is no certainty that MoUnt pleasant Farm will not change hands in the future
· Other sections of Blenheim Road will become open to develgpment
Short. cut to 'Charlottesville?
Et:Dis!ague: Lignins: A Safe Solution for Roads Page I of !
Lignins: A Safe Solution for Roads
LignOsulfonates have a long histo~ of use on roads as a method for dust control and surface
stabilization. Lignosulfonate road products are derived from the lignin that naturally binds
cellulose fibers together m give trees and plants firmness. These products are a safe and
economical attemafiYe to petroleum and salt-based products that are also applied to road surfaces.
The original method of applying lignosulfonates to road surfaces for dust control was very simple:
dilute raw'Iignosulfonate solutions were sprayed in light applications onto dirt roads. Over time,
road surfaces began to show an improved stabilization, increasing the appeal of using
tignOsulfonates. Lignosulfonate is well suited for a variety of uses such as parking lots, driveways,
and road shoulders, where pavement is toocostly and dust conditions become intolerable.
Lignosulfonates have a natural adhesive property when moist. When applied to dirt roads~, the
lignosuifonate solution coats individual road particles with a th/n adhesive-like film that binds the
particles together. It acts as a dispersant, allowing the partieles to pack closer together for a
stronger surface. Consequently, water uptake by the road bed surface is greatly reduced and the
binder is less likely to be washed away by mira
Benefits of L~gnosnlfonates for Road Applications:
Creates a Denser, Firmer Road Cap -Lignosulfonate treatment eliminates the sliding
hazards of loose dirt and gravel by binding them into a hard, skid-resistant surface.
Safe for the Environment - Lignosulfonates are non-toxic when properly applied, making
them safe for forage and surface water surrounding roadways.
Lignosulfonates are not corrosive like other dust control products and can be applied without
special equipment or clothing.
Improves Safety - By controlling dust clouds, visibility on dirt roads is signkficantly
increased, adding to driving comfort and safety.
Improves Efficiency - Vehicles can h~avei over roads treated with lignosulfonates almost
immediately, eliminating the need to re-route traffic. Dust is less likely to enter engine parts,
reducing equipment maintenance requirements.
Reduces Road Repa~ - Hardened road surfaces are less likely to Suffer the
fibbed "washboard" effect common with untreated gravel or dirt roads. As a result, frequent
grading can'be reduced or eh'minated.
Cormmereial lignosulfonate products meet the specifications of the U.S. Forest' Service
Administration, General Service Adminis~afion and local and regional government standards.
Lignosulfonate use on roads has been endorsed by various agencies for decades.
http ://www.lignin.info/roads.htm
t/23/2004
ENV!RONMENTAL ~EFFECTS
OF APPLYZNG
LTGNOSULFONATE TO ROADS
3AMES W ADAMS
DAISHOWA CHEMICALS INC
Research & Development
· , February - 1988
ENVZRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF APPLY/NG
L~GNOSULFONATE TO ROADS
SUMMARY:
The overall impact on the environment from apph/ing lignosulfonates to roads is negligible. They
are safer to use for stabilisation and dust control than any competing class of chemicals.
The manufacture of lignin involves evaporation; the evaporation process drives off any volatile
contaminants such as acetic acid. Corrosion and toxicity towards plants can be readily minimised
by pH control and lignosulfonates are non-toxic to animals.
Ugnosulfonates have been applied to roads, used in animal feeds and converted into human
foods for more than 30 years without problem. This comes as no surprise after learning that the
products have the following properties:
· No dioxins present. No other organics present at hazardous levels
· Toxic trace minerals are below EP Toxicity limits *
· Low order of toxicity towards fish
· Non-toxic orally and non-irrrcating to the skin or eyes of animals
No human health problems attributed to exposure
· Very iow toxicity towards plants
· Residuals are resistant to decay
When spread on land, there is no risk of contaminating ground water. Published data indicate
that at less than 10 kgs per square meter, no problems arise. This is much above the 1
kgm/square meter required for stabilisation and 0.3 kgm used for dust control.
The non-hazardous features and abundant supply of lignosulfonate make it a good material for
treating roads (1_). Tt is widely used in Sweden and California - two of the world's most
environment-conscious areas.
PRODUCTLON:
Tn the sulfite pulping of wood, lignin - nature's binder - becomes soluble and is separated from
the pulp fibers as spent liquor (SSL), This liquor also contains the naturally occurring wood
sugars.
Dilute SSL at 12% solids is treated and concentrated to 50 - 60% solids by evaporating water.
Starting from this base material, a family of chemicals has been developed. They are known as
lignins or lignosulfonates. They are used in the following applications:
Water Treatment Chemicals
Components of Adhesives
Animal Feed Pellet ~inders
Concrete Additives ~:';~: ~
Road Binders
Feed Molasses Additives
Oil Well Drilling Mud Additives
Textile Dye Dispersants
Gypsum Dispersants for Wallboard
Leather Tanning Agents
Dispersants for Brick Clay
Battery Plate Expanders
~ As ~et by the L/.$. Environmenta/Protection Agency
Lpudoun County Roads are Testing Ground for Dust Control & Stabilization Products Page I of 1
County of Loudoun
News Release
July 14, 2003
Loudoun County Roads are Testing Ground for Dust Control and Stabilization
'Several unpaved roads in Loudoun CoUnty will serve as a laboratory for researchers studying the
effectiveness of products designed to lessen dust problems and enhance the stability of gravel road
surfaces.
Beginning on or about July 22, various commercial, water-based produbts will be applied to the surface
of selected roads in the county. Researchers will monitor the effectiveness of each type of application.-
The product testing is ajoint venture of the Loudoun County Government, the Virginia Department of
Transportation (VDOT) and the Virginia Transportation Research Council Officials want to find out
whether the use of stabilizers can reduce the expense of maintaining unpaved roads: a cost that reaches
about $18.5 million a year in Virginia. In Loudoun County, about 337 miles, or 36% of VDOT-
maintained mileage in the county, are unpaved.
The roads included in the trial are:
2.9 miles of Rt. 698, Old Wheatland Rd, from Rt. 9 to Rt. 681, Milltown Rd;
1.7 miles' of Rt. 738, Hampton Rd., from Rt. 9 to Rt. 711, Piggott Bottom Rd;
1:5 miles of Rt. 729, Shelbume Glebe Rd., from Rt. 662, Loudoun Orchard Rd;
3.3 miles of Rt. 661 Limestone School Rd,, from Rt. 15 to Rt. 657, Spinks Ferry Road;
1.6 miles of Rt. 662, Shoemaker School 'Road, from Rt. 690; Sileott Springs Rd., to Rt. 611,
Telegraph Springs Rd;
5.3 miles of Rt. 698, Old Waterford Road, from the end of the paved section at Morven Park to
Rt. 665, Loyalty Rd.
The roads will be monitored and results of the tests analyzed over the next year.
Loudoun County and YDOT hope that one or more of the products wilI perform weU and reduce
maintenance costs, tf successful, the products eoutd be applied to additional Unpaved roads in the future.
Contact: Nancy McCormick, 703-737-8856
http://wwwv, toudom~.gov/news/tesfing.htm 1/26/2004
Pu~blie Sector News Article from ICMA-RC VantageLink Page ! of 2
Public Sector News:Highway
Quick-Fix Paving Plan Saves Time And MOney; Program
Targets Unpaved Roads Being Used Primarily By Local Traffic
Richmond Times - Dispatch
Jan 08, Ot:26 AM
There are plenty of dirt roads in Virginia, but a new quick-fro paving program i.s tak~g care of at least some of those
roads less traveled.
Unpaved marls used predominantly for local traffic are being improved by the Virginia Department of
Transportation's new and apparently successful Rural Rustic Road Program. The road has to carry at least 50 vehicles
a day but not more than 500 to be included in the program.
VDOT engineers essentially pave the road as it is, keeping the rural-road ambience, saving money and getting the job
done quickly. It could save the state millions of dollars.
"Buying fight of ways and excavating on these tow-volume roads can be very expensive," said Jim Givens, who
oversaw the program until recently. "And it did not improve the quality of life for-residents.
"With this program, we don't do excavations or buy right of ways," he said. "Ifs a practical, common-sense approach."
There are about 10,000 miles of unpaved roads in Virginia, about 6,000 of which carry more than 50 vehicles a day,
said C4vens, now VDOTs district administrator in Bristol. There are about 47,000 miles of secondm3~ roads in
Virginia.
The Rustic Road program, which officially began in July, has completed about 180 projects in COunties ranging from
Sussex to Bath to Russell. Most of the projects, which do not require extensive engineering studies, Pave an average of
one to one-and-a-half miles of roads
Some examples:
*In James City County, a half-mile of Racefield Road was estimated to cost $900,000 to pave under standard paving
requirements and would not have been done until 2010. Under the Rustic Road program, the job was done by October
for $80,000.
*in Augusta County.last year, as part of a pilot program, six projects were completed. The engineering and
construction of the six county roads would have cost an estimated $3.28 million. Instead, it cost $326,000 and took
only four mont~hs to put asphalt down over thegravel roads, VDOT officials said.
This year, six more roads were paved in Augusta, bringing the total to more than 15 miles, said Jerry VanLear, the
resident engineer mr VDOT in.Verona.
h~p:~/www.~cmarc.~rg/xp~news~5~v?`Ar~c~e~xm~xm~=$/Ye~wBnxC~nten~ghway/456... 1/26/2004
',P, hilipatown Dirt Road Assn. Page 1 of 1
Philipstown Dirt Road Association
Mission
Joi~r~ Us
Board of Directors
International Network
Emerggs
Reports
DUst Control Methods
Road Myths
Local Meetings
The Philipstown Dirt Road
Association [PDRA] promotes'
the economic, historic,
recreational, environmental, and
safety attributes of the network
of unpaved roads in Philipstown,
New York. This includes Cold
Spring, Garrison, Manitou and
the adjoining areas. To fulfill this
mission, the association collects
and maintains information;
monitors and documents the
physical state of the roads,
including man-made and'natural
changes. PDRA distributes
information as educational
programs and literature to
increase public awareness.
For further information, wri~e'~o
Philipstown Dirt Road
Association
PO Box 444
Garrison, NY'I
The Center for Dirt and Gravel Road
Studies at Penn State University offe~
access to ~hei? research via their Web site~
http://www.highlandS.com/pdra/default.html 1/18/2004
~ Phihpgtown Dm Road Assn. Page 1 of 2
The Road Myths of Philipstown
Road Myth:
The cost of our roads is too high because so many of the are dirt.
The truth is that it costs Philipstown~tax payers about twice as
much to maintain a Paved road. ~'
TYPe of Road _2
IAnnual Maintenance C°st Per Mile °f ROad 3 II
iAdditional Annual Cost of Surfacing each Mile
of Road
Road
Dirt
Black
I
$6'132 1 I
$12~078
$t3,788
in 1993 routine maintenance for one mile ofblack top surfaced road cost $1,710.
In 1993 routine maintenance for one mile of c[irt surfaced road cost $6,132.
These numbers give the impression that it costs $4,422' more m maintain a mile of dirt surfaced road
than black top surfaced road. This is not tree, s/nee the black top surface requires frequent
r~piacemem anu ~osts suostana~ry more'than the di~ s-atface.
When a dirt road is maintained, a.new dirt surface is always applied as a part of the routine
maintenance process. Paving does not come free and while the paved surface is not replaced during
routine maintenance, it is a recurring cost that must ~be added to the $1,710 routine maintenance cost.
In Philipstow,.n we can expect to pay an additional $75,000 4_ per mile of paVed road every eight years
5-to renew the black top road surface. Onan annualized basis this equals $9,375 per mile.
When the annual cost of mandatory r. esurfacing is added to the annual maintenance cost, ihe 3~al
maintenance cost of a paved road is $11,085 _6 per mile. If an 8-year bond 2 is floated at 6% per year
To finance the paving, the real annual Cost of a road with a paved surface is $13,788 per mile, per
year. Therefore we can expect paved roads to cost Phi-lipstown over twice What we spend on dirt
roads.
S/ncc the Philipstown Highway'department receives nearly half of the taXes collected by the Town,
you can easily understand the impact paved roads have .on your ~taxes. 1/17/2004
RECEF.~ED AT BOS
Date:~ MEETING
Agenda Item #: / (~, ,
Clerk's Initials:_ (~)~,~ _
INFRASTRUCTURE/COMMUNITY SERVICES
TRANSPORTATION
The pr/mary objective of the Rural Areas Chapter is to preserve the rural character of the
county. Depending on ones perspective, there can be many interpretations of what rural
character means. In regard to transportation issues in the Rural Areas, it should not be
the commuter that defines rural character; mtber the local residents should define the
context of rural character.
Rural character could be described as a scenic landscape of open spaces, and is also
composed of the human activities upon that landscape that define rural life.
Consideration should be given to the multi-modal function of rural roads, giving non-
motorized users equal consideration in rural neighborhoods and where otherwise
appropriate. Rural roads should be designed ha such a manner that drivers passing
through Rural Areas are alert to and moving at appropriate speed to react safely to slower
moving farm equipment, bicycl/sts, or ch/ldren walking from a school bus stop.
Transportation needs should be carefully analyzed so as not to conflict with the primary
goal of the County's growth management policy to direct growth into the designated
growth areas and conserve the remainder of the County for Rural Areas and resource
protection. The two main considerations in rural transportation issues are providing safe
roads and maintaining rural character. County roads should maintain their rural
character, even when changes are made to them. Road improvements should not only
provide for safe and reasonable mobility, but also contribute to the rural character of the
County.. Roads should be identified that provide for connections/destination routes to
serve the mral population and to provide farm-to-market functions. It shOuld be clearly
noted that these secondary roads should not be designated or designed to become the
impetus for growth corridors. Transportation improvements should be designed in
context with their setting.
During the Rural Areas Public Meetings held during the winter of 2002-2003, citizen
comments indicated that their primary concern was for the safety and maintenance of the
County's rural roads. Road improvements, such as installing shoulders and guardm/ls,
were preferred over building new roads. Many rural residents responded that they d/d not
want to see transportation funding that could contribute to the safety of rural roads be
channeled into the Development Areas.
There was also public sentiment for alternative transportation possibilities such as
JAUNT, public transport stations, and traffic calming. The County should coordinate
alternative transportation possibilities with the appropriate agents, such as YDOT, at the
time development or road construction occurs.
RA worksession 9 2 03 draft 46
Aug. 20, 2O03
Unpaved Roads
There are cun'ently 227 m/les of unpaved secondary roads in the County. At the end of
2002, the Virginia Department o£ Transportation introduced a program to pave rural
roads in the County that is an alternative to the Pave-In-Place Program. The Rural Rustic
Roads Program is designed to pave rural roads in a more environmentally friendly and
less costly manner than the rarely used and more restrictive Pave-In-Place Program. The
goal of the program is to pave more miles ofroads with the 1/m/ted funds available, doing
so with no or minimal encroachment beyond existing ditches and without compromising
the safety of the road.
For a road to be co~sidered a candidate for the program, the road must be a pr/ority in the
County Six-Year Plan; it must be part of the State's secondary system ofhighways and
have an average daily trip count ofno less ~ 50 and no more than 500; and it must also
be familiar to most drivers and serve low-density land uses.
In addition to the above criteria, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors must pledge
to designate a candidate road as a Rural Rustic Road and pass a resolution for each
candidate road. Furthermore, the Board would have to pledge to limit growth along the
candidate road through comprehensive planning and zoning.
The Rural Rustic Roads Program would better meet the Guiding Principles for the Rural
Areas than the Pave-In-Place Program. By using existing road widths for road
improvements, rather than increasing road widths, the goat of preserving the County' s
rural scenic resources would be more obtainable.
General Design Standards for Rural Roads
The following are general design standards for roads in the Rural Areas and should be
coordinated with the Department of Engineering:
1. Rural roads should be designed to retain their rural character and not be designed to
the characteristics of suburban subdivision street standards.
2. Rural roads should consist of minimum travelway widths that are necessary for
safety.
3. Typical rural section design (shoulders and ditch) should consist of greater horizontal
and vertical curvature.
As is not always the case, Virginia Department of Transportation Mountainous Road
Standards should be applicable to the Rural Areas roads. Exceptions to these may be
approphate in the rural crossroads comun/ties where the character of those areas
may dictate pedestrian facilities and road designs.
RA worksession 9 2 03 draft 47
Aug. 20, 2003
5. Rural roads should be designed to encourage multi-modal travel opportunities.
Design the construction of road improvements to be protective of environmentally
sensitive areas. Any anticipated road improvements or construction in fragile areas
should receive careful scrutiny and provide protection measures to eliminate
ecological, environmental, and aesthetic concerns.
7. Min/mize clearing activities associated with construction to the greatest extent
feasible.
8. Min/mize the number of access points on rural roads to those necessary to provide
safe and convenient access.
OBJECTIVE: Provide a balance between the safety of rural roads and maintaining the
rural character. Evaluate the need to establish rural road design standards to help
art/culate expectations for road design that meet this balance,
STRATEGIES:
The County should:
1. Focus road improvements on safety improvements such as providing shoulders,
gnardrails, and spot improvements such as straightening curves rather than the paving
and widening of rural roads.
2. Pursue the Rural Rustic Roads Program as an alternative to the Pave-In-Place
program. The Rural Rustic Roads Program is a more environmentally friendly and
less costly way than the Pave-In-Place Program.
3. Consider expanding transportation alternatives, such as JAUNT, to provide and
enhance rural transit oppommities.
4. Explore new transportation alternatives such as park and ride lots and traffic calming
in crossroad communities.
5. Limit constmction ofnew roads in the Rural Areas, especially where road building
would impact or fragment natural habitats.
6. Require that new-road projects and road improvement projects/nclude measures that
avoid degrading habitats or actively improve them (for example, wildlife tunnels
where roads cross migration corridors, stream crossing designs that consider habitat
connectivity as well as flood level impacts, etc.).
7. Identify roads that would provide for connections/destination routes to serve the mml
population and to provide farm-to-market routes. It should be clearly noted that these
secondary roads should not be designated or designed to become the impetus for
growth corridors.
WATER AND SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Current County policy is to restrict development in water supply watersheds and to
discourage the location of public facilities such as public sewer and water lines in the
RA worksession 9 2 03 draf~ 4 8
Aug. 20, 2003
ner
February 4, 2004
RECEIVED AT BOS MEETING
Date: ~
Agenda item #:~
CJerk°s JnitJals:~
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Via Hand Delivery
Dear Sirs and Madam:
I respectfully request your endorsement of Marcia Joseph as Planning
Commissioner at Large. Ms. Joseph has the most professional training and experience .of
any of the applicants. Furthermore, and in my opinion, more import2mtly, she has
demonstrated a commitment to the future of Albemarle County through countless hours
of volunteer service to a variety of citizen groups working on planning and land use
issues.
Furthermore, I specifically oppose Denny King for the Planning Commission
seat. Mr. King is firmly entrenched as the voice of a few wealthy residents of the
County. Persons of wealth and notoriety must not.be accorded a louder voice than the
citizens of more modest means in this the birthplace of our democratic government.
No other applicant has the training, experience or dedication to better serve
Albemarle County. Please endorse Ms. Joseph as Planning Commissioner at Large.
Most sincerely,
'~~Ar~fil R. Fletcher' ~'~~
PO Box 587 · Charlottesville, Va. 22902 · Phone 434-286-7255 · Fax 434-286-7655 · e-mail: April~bestofwhatsaround.org
Total Annual Sedimentation
Storage Rate Since LaSt SUrvey
Source Year (MG) (MGIYear)
As-Built/Design 1966 1700 (Predicted 19.6)
Betz Environmental Engineers, Inc. 1976 1620 8.00
Glaspe~/, R.G. 1980 1520 25.00
James R. Reed & Associates, Inc. 1988 1420 12.50
Black & Veach 1994 1330 15.00
RWSA/Waterway Surveys, Inc. 2001 1150 25.71
RWSANVaterway Surveys, Inc. 2002 1155 -5.00
Average I 15.14
Safe Yield Results (Jan. 2004)
25.0
20.0
'o 15.0
'o 10.0
E
5.0
0.0
1990 2000
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
-.e--Average Day Demand
Safe Yield - Release Lesser of 8mgd or Inflow
Safe Yield - With No Release
Safe Yield - Release of constant 8mgd
]8
[~n ~b Mot A~,r ~4av ~une lut~ Aug .~e~t Oct Nov EJec ~an Feb ~{ar g~r
Legend:
~ Project Mitestone
Note: ~ Confirmation of supplemental activities will be determined afterthe additional
~drologic Model & Review of Favo~bte Water Supply AItematives is complete,
Gannett Fleming
Oct Nov Dec ]an Feb Mar
Approval
22
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and
Families (CCF) Report on the Comprehensive Services Act
- Cost Containment Subcommittee Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of Findings and Recommendations
presented in C CF's C SA Cost Containment Report a nd
Recommendations
STAFF CONTACT(S): Ms. White, Ms. Ralston,
Mr. McWhinney
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes, Cost Containment Report
BACKGROUND:
The Comprehensive Services for At-Risk Youth & Families Act (CSA) is a state law that consolidated funding for legally
mandated services to troubled children and families and required the establishment of local interagency management and
service delivery systems to plan and provide services. Charlottesville and Albemarle are facing escalating costs of
providing State mandated services to troubled youth under CSA, which ~s overseen by the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Commission on Children and Families (CCF).
Since the program began in Fiscal Year 1994, CSA caseloads and costs have increased steadily. The average annual
increase in children served has been 8% for Charlottesville and 19% for Albemarle. Expenditures of CSAfunds for the City
have increased an average of 23% per year and for Albemarle, 27% per year. Primarily the growing number of children
required to be served and the increasing severity of their service needs has driven CSA cost increases. At the same time,
administrative staffing for CSA coordination has remained unchanged at 1.2 FTE positions in the CCF office. State funding
for administering this $12 million program (in Fiscal Year 2003) is only $30,456 per year.
Due to growth in the CSA program and its state-mandated administrative requirements, the Charlottesville/Albemarle
management and service delivery system has become overloaded. In July 2003, an interagency work group implemented
changes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the service planning process, however, costs remain a concern. In
February 2003, CCF and its GSA Committee established the CSA Cost Containment Subcommittee to study the reasons for
cost growth and recommend ways to improve cost control. The subcommittee worked for nine months researching data,
examin ng program operations, and identifying best practices in other localities.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This item relates to Strategic Direction #3, "Enhance the Quality of Life for al Citizens."
DISCUSSION:
The attached CSA Cost Containment Report presents its findings and recommendations grouped in four categories:
Utilization Management, which refers to the activities and processes involved in assessing service needs, selecting
providers, delivering, monitoring, evaluating and terminating services; Prevention Services, which refers to the fact that
CSA costs are driven by the number of children required to be served, and preventing children from entering foster care and
reducing the need for out of school placement is the single best way to control CSA costs; Intervention Services which
AGENDA TITLE: Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families (CCF) Report on the Comprehensive
Services Act - Cost Containment Subcommittee Report
AGENDA DATE: February 4, 2004
Page 2 of 3
includes asSessment of service needs, service plan development, and provision of services by staff in local CSA agencies;
and, Policy Issues, which refers to the need to address several policy areas that could help reduce costs in the CSA
program. Below is a select listing of findings and recommendations in each area. The fiscal impact is included in the
recommendation, if appropriate.
Ut#ization Mana.qement
Primary Findings: 1. There is insufficient personnel capacity and funding within the CSA staff and committee structure to
accomplish the work necessary to effectively manage the program and control costs; 2. There is insufficient awareness of
and case rnanager a nd staff attention t o vendor accountability a nd cost control; 3. C SA agency s taft a nd t he CSA
Coordinator lack adequate time to conduct thorough case-specific utilization review and system-wide utilization
management; and, 4. Limited information is available about outcomes achieved by service providers and the effectiveness
of different treatment methods they use.
Recommendations: 1. Establish a full-time Utilization Management Coordinator using appropriated CSAfunds (does not
require new local funds); 2. Appropriate funds to establish a half-time Family Assessment and Planning Team (FAPT)
Coordinator to coordinate clerical functions that would allow CSA coordinator to focus on program management functions
that can have an effect on cost control outcomes (requires an additional appropriation of $13,115 in new local funds);
and 3. Establish a single FAPT team model to achieve a higher level of expertise and more consistent attention to cost
issues (does not require new local funds).
Prevention Services
Primary Findings: In recent years older children, ages 12 and up, have become a larger percentage of the foster care CSA
caseload. They are typically more difficult and costly to place and serve; the rate of children in foster care in both the City
and the County exceeds the state average (36.9 per 1,0000 children in the City; 8.4 in the County; and an average of 4.4
statewide; the national average is 7.5). The number of children in foster care appears to reflect a community philosophy that
is especially proactive in preventing children from "falling through the cracks." And, existing foster care prevention programs
have documented success, but lack the capacity to serve all children at high risk of placement.
Recommendations: 1. The City. should fund two new Foster Care prevention social worker positions by taking advantage of
Title IV-E federal funds; 2. The County should ensure continued funding for foster care prevention services, such as Bright
Stars and Family Support Programs; and, 3. City Council and the Board of Supervisors should direct any additional local
funding to support other prevention services programs usin§ models with demonstrated success for children ages 11 and
older, guided by data on service effectiveness from the CCF and its budget review teams.
Intervention Services
Primary Findings: 1. When children must be placed out of home on an emergency basis, there is often no local resource
for placement, nor is there an opportunity to conduct a thorough assessment of problems and service needs prior to
placement. This can contribute to unnecessarily high cost if children must be placed in more intensive treatment than would
be necessary if there was opportunity for better assessment. The subcommittee found that some children are rejected or
ejected from multiple treatment facilities on an average of 2.9 facilities that were unable to meet their needs. Some of this is
attributable tothe inability to conduct a thorough assessment due to the mandatory and emergency need for placement.
Recommendations:: 1. The City and County governments should support the CSA committee in developing a local
program or system to provide CSA-purchased comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment of any child who requires it; and,
2. The community should develop and implement local programs or facilities to accept and stabilize any child in a crisis
situation who needs a CSA funded emergency placement. There is currently underutilized space at the Blue Ridge
Detention Center, which could be considered for alternative programming of this type.
Policy Issues
Primary Findings: 1. State funding provided for local CSA administrative costs is only $30,380 per year, about 0.2% of total
CSA expenditures in FY 2003. There has been only one small increase in nine years, even as mandated administrative
requirements have steadily grown; and, 2. Public residential mental health treatment facilities for children have been virtually
eliminated by the Commonwealth of Virginia, which has resulted in state-to-local cost shifting. Children with senous mental
and emotional impairments who in the past would have been placed in state facilities now must be served by private
program with CSA funds.
Recommendations: 1. The City and County should advocate for increased state funding for CSA administrative costs and
AGENDA TITLE: Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and Families (CCF) Report on the Comprehensive
Services Act - Cost Containment Subcommittee Report
AGENDA DATE: February 4, 2004
Page 3 of 3
for relief from cost shifting from the state to the localities through supporting VML and VACO legislative positions on this
issue.
The above is a brief summary of the recommendations and strategies that the subcommittee developed. It is not all-
inclusive. There are numerous implementation strategies that have not been discussed in this summary, but involve internal
structural review and revision to achieve cost containment goals.
The full text of the report is attached, minus the appendices. The full report, plus appendices, is available online at
www.ccfinfo.or,q. If Board members would like a hard copy of the appendices, please inform the Office of the County
Executive.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the report and its recommendations.
04.011
CSA COST CONTAINMENT REPORT
CHARLOTTESVILLE/ALBEMARLE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN & FAMILIES
PREPARED BY THE CSA
COST CONTAINMENT
SUB-COMMITTEE
Box 9~ 1 ~ Chadottesvi~le~ VA 22902 · www.ccfinfo.orc3 · 434-970-3550
Executive Summary
The Comprehensive Services Act for
At-Risk Youth and Families (CSA) is a
state lawthat consolidated funding for
legally mandated services to troubled
children and fa milles and required the
establishment of local interagency
management and service delivery
systems to plan and provide services.
Locally, the CSA program is overseen by
the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Commission on Children and Families
(CCF).
The Comprehensive Services Act for At~RiskYouth and Families (CSA) is a state
law that consolidated funding for legally mandated services to troubled chil-
dren and families and required the establishment of local interagency man-
agement and service delivery systems to plan and provide services. Locally,
the CSA program is overseen by the Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on
Children and Families (CCF).
The CSA program has increased interagency collaboration and community
involvement in serving troubled children and families. Services have become
more efficient and children in need are less likely to "fall through the cracks."
Charlottesville and Albemarle have been recognized by the state for the quality
of services provided under CSA and compliance with program management
requirements.
Since the program began in Fiscal Year 1994, CSA caseloads and costs have
increased steadily. The average annual increase in children served has been
8% for Charlottesville and 19% for Albemarle. Expenditures of CSA funds
for the City have increased an average of 23% per year and for Albemarle,
27% per year. CSA cost increases have been driven primarily by the growing
number of children required to be served and the increasing severity of their
service needs. At the same time, administrative staffing for CSA coordination
has remained unchanged at 1.2 positions in the CCF office. State funding
provided for administration of this $12 million program (in fiscal year 2003) is
only $30,456 per year.
Due to growth in the CSA program and its state-mandated administrative
requirements, the Charlottesville/Albemarle management and service deliv-
ery system has become overloaded. In July 2003, an interagency work group
implemented changes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the service
planning process. While significant progress has been made in the system's
effectiveness, costs remain a concern.
In February 2003, the Commission and its CSA Committee established the CSA
COst Containment Subcommittee to study the reasons for cost growth a nd recom-
mend ways to improve cost control. The Subcommittee worked for nine months
researching data, examining program operations, and identifying best practices in
other localities. Its recommendations are grouped in four categories:
· Utilization Management. "Utilization Management" refers to the activities
and processes involved in assessing service needs, selecting service providers,
delivering, monitoring, evaluating, and terminating services provided primar-
ily by private vendor agencies. Effective utilization management is critical to
providing the most appropriate and effective services and controlling costs.
· Prevention Services. CSA costs are driven primarily by the number of
children required to be served. The majority of those children are in foster care,
and the second largest group is Special Education students. High CSA costs in our
localities are due mainly to high caseloads and the increasing severity of children's
needs.. Preventing children from entering foster care and reducing the need for
out-of-school special education services is the single best way to control CSA costs.
· Intervention Services. The CSA program intervenes when children re-
quire removal from their homes and placement in foster care or when their
special education needs cannot be met in the local schools. Services are
provided by staff i;n the local CSA agencies and through purchase from
other public and private service providers. Cost issues include sever-
ity of children's service needs, availability of appropriate service providers,
rates charged for services, and effectiveness of case management. The
development of new service resources locally, particularly for secure emer-
gency placement and assessment, may contribute to better cost control.
· Policy Issues. Changes in state and federal policies and resources have
resulted in the shifting of costs and service responsibility to CSA for children
who formerly would have been served in public mental health or correctional
facilities. Modifications in these and other policy areas could contribute to
reduced CSA pro§ ram costs.
CSA Cost-Containment
Subcommittee Background
The Commission and its CSA
Committee established the CSA Cost
Containment Subcommittee to study
the reasons for cost growth and
recommend ways to improve cost
control... Its recommendations are
grouped in four categories:
· Utilization Management
· Prevention Services
· Intervention Services
· Policy Issues
Major
Recommendations
· Establish a full-time Utilization
Management (UM) Coordinator
position
· Provide funds to increase prevention
services
· Support the CSA Committee in
developing a local program or system
for comprehensive and secure
multidisciplinary assessment of
any child who requires it.
· Establish a single Family Assessment
and Planning Team model
The Subcommittee's major reCommendations are:
1. The City and County governments should approve the use of appropriated
CSA funds to establish a full-time Utilization Management (UM} Coordina-
tor position to implement a comprehensive utilization management system.
2. The City and County governments should provide funds to increase preven-
tion services, including:
· Take advantage of available federal Title IV-E funds (with a 50% local match)
to establish two new Foster Care Prevention social worker positions in the
City's Social Services Department.
· Ensure continued funding support for the County's Bright Stars and
Family Support Programs.
· Direct additional local funding support to other prevention service pro-
grams using models with demonstrated results for children age 11 and u p.
3. The City and County governments should support the CSA Committee
in developing a local program or system for comprehensive and secure
multidisciplinary assessment of any child who requires it.
4. The CSA Committee should form an implementation work group to establish
a single Family Assessment and Planning Team model by July 1,2004, to
replace the current structure of four interagency teams of case managers who
review service plans and recommend funding.
There is no simple solution to the CSA cost dilemma. CSA is a legally mandated
program that is administratively complex. Locally we are operating it with
minimal staffing relative to the program's administrative and case management
challenges. Additional system improvements possible with currently available
resources are likely to be marginal. Improved cost control will require the invest-
ment of new resources. The Subcommittee's report provides a recommended
investment strategy.
4
Introduction: The CSA Program
The Corn prehensive Services Act for At-RiskYouth and Families (CSA) is a state
law passed in 1992 (Code of Virginia, Sec. 2.2-5200 to -5214) to change the way
publicly-funded services to troubled children and families a re delivered. It was
intended to increase interagency collaboration, allow greater local flexibility
in developing and providing services, and help control costs, particularly in
foster care.
CSA created the State Pool of funds to pay for services, combining several state
funding streams that previously went to separate agencies, established a for-
rnula for local matching funds (45% for Albemarle and 31% for Charlottesville),
and required the creation of local interagency boards, called Community Policy
and Management Teams (CPMT),to administer the funds and services. The City
and County chose to form a joint CPMT to administer CSA locally.
Introduction:
The CSA Program
The Comprehensive Services Act for
At,Risk Youth and Families (CSA) is
intended to increase interagency col-
la boration, allow greater local flexibility
in developing and providing services,
and help control costs, particularly in
foster care.
Since 1998, the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) has served as the
CPMT for Charlottesville/Albemarle. The CCF is a 22-member planning and
advisory bodyto the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle composed
of citizen, community agency, local government, education, and UniverSity lead-
ers with the mission of im proving outcomes for local children and families.The
Act mandates that the membership of the CPMT include, at a minimum, the
Focal agency heads or their designees from the Charlottesville and Albemarle
Departments of Social Services, theThomas Jefferson Health District, RegionTen
Community Services Board, the Charlottesville and Albemarle Public Schools,
and the Juvenile Court Services Unit, as well as a parent representative, a private
service provider agency representative, and an elected or appointed govern-
ment official from Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
Children legally mandated to be served through CSA include those who are in
foster care (placed in the legal custody of the Department of Social Services by
the Juvenile Court judge) or at risk of entering foster care and children needing
residential or day placement for special education needs that cannot be met
in the local school system. The relative numbers served in these categories are
Child~'en legally manadated to be
served through CSA include:
1) children in foster care
2) children at risk of being placed in
foster care
3) chi!dren needing residential or
day placement for special education
needs that cannot be met in the local
school system,
CSA provides a range
of services to youth
Many of the children served by CSA
are suffering from physical abuse or
neglect, sexual abuse, serious emo-
tional disturbance, conduct disorders,
autism, other types of psychiatric
illness, and drug or alcohol abuse.
different for the City and County, the City having proportionally more foster
care cases and the County relatively more in Special Education (see Appendix
1). Many of these children are suffering from physical abuse or neglect, sexual
abuse, serious emotional disturbance, conduct disorders, autism, other types
of psychiatric illness, and drug or alcohol abuse.
CSA provides a range of services, purchased from public and private providers,
including:
· Room and board in foster family homes;
· Therapeutic foster care;
· Supervision and services in group homes;
· Special education in residential and day treatment facilities;
· Psychiatric, psychological, and other services in residential treatment
facilities;
· Intensive in~home therapy and out-patient counseling;
· Training in job readiness and independent living skills;
· Child care, parent education, mentoring, and other support services.
Caseworkers in the public agencies included in the Act assess service needs
of children and families, develop
- - - service plans, and manageand coor-
a3,6
4~ ALBEAAARLE [] CHARLOTTESVILLE ~ VIRGINIA
Sources: Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children and £amilies State Office of Comprehensive Services
dinate the delivery of services. They
collaborate on CSA-mandated Fam-
ily Assessment and Planning Teams
(FAPT) to review service plans and
recommend funding to the CPMT.
Services are purchased from public
and private provider agencies. The
CSA Coordinator in the CCF office
provides administrative staff sup-
port for the program.
6
Background
Many of the changes brought about by the Comprehensive Services Act have
been positive. CSA has substantially increased interagency collaboration in
serving troubled children, improving the early identification of service needs
and the efficiency of planning and providing services. Over 100 case managers
in six public child-serving agencies work through the CSA program to jointly
plan and coordinate services and prevent children are from "falling through
the Cracks." There is greater community and parental involvement in meeting
the needs of troubled children and more services are available to meet those
needs.
Charlottesville and Albemarle have been recognized by the state for successful
implementation of CSA. In June of 2002, the state Office of Comprehensive
Services conducted a three-day formal review of our local CSA operations. They
found that our CSA system was providing quality services through interagency
collaboration and community involvement. Case records were found to contain
the required documentation of service needs, service planning, appropriate-
ness of care, and utilization management and review. They noted that cost
containment measures were in place, and commended the City and County
for placing high emphasis on the use of Medicaid and Title IV-E as alternative
funding sources to save CSA costs.
Background
The CSA program in Charlottesville/
Albemarle is successful in many re-
spects but can be im proved. Since the
implementation of CSA in July 1993,
caseloads and service costs have
increased steadily, as have state-man-
dated administrative requirements.
The CSA program in Cha rlottesville/Albemarle is successful
but can be improved. Caseloads and service costs have in-
creased steadily since 1993 ,as have state-mandated admin-
istrative requirements. The local CSA program budget has
been a growing concern, and our CSA system has become
overloaded and more difficult to manage. State funding for
program administration pays only a fraction of the program's
real operating cost and has been increased only once in nine
years.
Fiscal year 2003 was the ninth year of the CSA program. Over
that period of time the average annual increase in expendi-
in many respects
7
Background
In the spring of 2003 the work group
implemented a series of changes to the
FAPT structure and process designed
to better meet state mandates, increase
efficiency, ensure high-quality service
recommendations, increase focus
on child outcomes, and ensure that
cost effectiveness is always a primary
consideration in developing service
plans.
tures for CSA services in Charlottesville has been 23% and in Albemarle 27%
(see Appendix 2). The average annual increase in children served has been 8%
in Charlottesville and 19% in Albemarle (see Appendix 3). In 2002, Medicaid
began paying for some CSA services, reducing local cost.
High CSA costs in our localities are due mainlyto high caseloads and the increasing
severity of children's needs..
Ad Hoc Committee on FAPT ProCess
In the fall of2002, growing CSA caseloads and state administrative requirements
had overloaded the Family Assessment and Planning Team system to the point
that its effectiveness was seen as diminished. The large volume of cases coming
before the four teams had reduced their ability to fully meet state administra-
tive requirements, ensure the best service plans, and give thorough attention
to cost issues. An interagency work group was established to consider these
problems and implement system improvements.
In the spring of 2003 the work group implemented a series of changes to the
FAPT structure and process designed to better meet state mandates, increase
efficiency, ensure high-quality service recommendations, increase focus on child
outcomes, a nd ensure that cost effectiveness is always a primary consideration
'n develo ping service plans. New tools and streamlined procedures were de-
veloped to reduce duplicative effort, ensure consistency in case presentations
and the review process, and maximize parental involvement.
Cost Containment Subcommittee
In spite of policies and processes built into the CSA system for fiscal man-
agement, costs have continued to increase substantially. In February 2003
the Commission and its CSA Committee established the Subcommittee on
cost containment and asked it to:
· Identify and analyze the reasons for CSA costs and increases.
· Review our current policies and processes related to cost control and deter
mine if and how they can be improved.
· Research cost-control practices in other localities.
· Identify and evaluate new options for cost control.
· Make recommendations to the CSA committee on improvements to our
current cost control practices and new cost control measures to implement.
The Subcommittee was chaired by Paul McWhinney and met 12 times
between March and November 2003. Members formed subgroups that
conducted data analyses on costs, cases, and services, researched legal
issues and best practices, examined how CSA is administered in localities
with better cost experience, and studied our local structure and processes
to assess potential improvements.
The Subcommittee found that reasOns for cost growth include increasing
numbers of children legally mandated to be served, a growing percentage
of children with severe problems requiring the most expensive treatment,
increasing service fees charged by vendors, and an overloaded and under-
staffed system unable to conduct all the best practice administrative and
case management functions to control costs. Recommendations address
each of these areas.
Background
Cost Containment Subcommittee
Members
Saphira Baker, Director,
Commission on Children and Families
Katie Bullard, City of Charlottesville
Budget Manager
Robert A. Cox, III, Director of Social
Services, Charlottesville
Gretchen Ellis, Planner, Commission
on Children and Families
Kevin Kirst, Special Education Coordi-
nator, Albemarle County Schools
Cheryl Lewis, Foster Care Supervisor,
Albemarle Social Services
Paul McWhinney~ Assistant Director,
Albemarle Social Services
Mike Murphy, Program Coordinator,
Community Attention
Dana Neidley, Chief of Sociai Work,
Charlottesville Social Services
Earl Pendleton, Probation Supervisor.
~ 6th District Court Services Unit
Chalarra Sessoms. Social Worker,
Charlottesville City Schoois
Erin Sutfin. University of Virginia
Graduate Student
Cindy Stratton, CSA Coordinator
Roxanne White, Assistant County
Executive, Albemarfe County
Research
Methodology
The Subcommittee determined that
recommendations needed to be based
on concrete data. To this end, the sub-
committee conducted a number of re-
search projects to collect information
about current CSA costs and utilization,
local perceptions and practices, and
best practice models.
Research Methodology
The Subcommittee determined that recommendations needed to be based on
concrete data. To this end, the subcommittee conducted a number of research
projects to collect information about current CSA costs and utilization, local
perceptions and practices, and best practice models. Following is a summary
of these research projects.
1. Cost and data analysis: In April, 2003, Gretchen Ellis reviewed CSA fiscal
records for each locality for FY00-FY02 to gather data about overall cost, types
of cases served, kinds of services provided, demographics of youth served,
vendor rates and utilization. Findings indicate that local expenses increased
35% in the City and 44°,6 in the County in two years. The increases in vendor
fees varied widely, from 7% to 75%. ISee Appendix 4)
2. Survey of Subcommittee members: In April 2003, Subcommittee members
completed a self-survey to identify possible causes of increased costs. Survey
responses were used to guide further research to test proposed theories. Com-
mittee members identified possible causes including a lack of local resources,
state and local policies, vendor practices, insufficient utilization management,
and a changing client population. (See Appendix 5, survey instrument)
3. Residential casefile research: In May and June 2003, Erin Sutfin reviewed
the case files of 12 youth in extended and costly residential placements. Data
were analyzed to determine the number, types, and outcomes of residential
placements. Findings indicated that many of these youth were rejected or
ejected by multiple facilities. Diagnostic practices and service planning were
inconsistent. (See Appendix 6)
4. Utilization management research: In August 2003, Buz Cox and Paul Mc,
Whinney presented research about effective utilization management practices.
Utilization management is the process of managing costs and use of services
through effective planning, monitoring, and decision-making to assure that
services provided are appropriate and cost-effective. (See Appendix 7)
10
5. In-home services case file research: n July, 2003, Gretchen Ellis and Department
of Social Services staff analyzed a representative sample of case files for children who
received in-home foster care prevention services to determine the appropriateness and
impact of these services. Favorable outcomes were achieved in 50% of cases. (See Ap-
pendix 8)
Research
Methodology
6. Best practice interviews: In August 2003, Erin Sutfin presented the results of inter-
views with CSA staff in Hampton, Hanover, and Winchester, all communities which have
implemented effective cost containment practices. Best practices in Norfolk, Richmond,
and Lynchburg were also examined. Findings indicated that these localities have exten-
sive utilization management programs and several use a single professional FAPT model.
(See Appendix 9)
7. Current practice interviews: In July and August 2003, Katie Bullard conducted struc-
tured interviews with a representative sam pie of CSA case managers. They indicated that
high caseloads, lack of local resources, and lack of sufficient capacity for case management
are among issues that impact CSA costs. (See Appendix 10)
8. Foster Care prevention statistical research: n August 2003 Cheryl Lewis and Dana
Neidley, along with other staff from the Departments of Social Services, analyzed foster
care prevention statistics. This research analyzed three years of data for all foster care
prevention cases to determine whether these children later entered foster care. Research
showed that a majority of these children did not enter foster care with more favorable
outcomes in the County. (See Appendix 11)
9. Legal Research: The Subcommittee asked the Charlottesville City Attorney's office to
research legal questions pertaining to CSA cost issues. The research (see Appendix 12)
found that the CSA system has the legal responsibility to provide appropriate services and
the flexibility to do so at the lowest feasible cost, but that the Juvenile Court judge has
the authority to require higher levels of services at additional cost. Also, the legislature
made a Code change in 2000 making the criteria for committing a delinquent child to a
Juvenile Justice facility more restrictive. Foster care being one of the dispositional op-
tions for the judge in delinquency cases, some children who previously would have been
committed to state correctional facilities may be placed in foster care instead.
11
Findings and
Recommendations
Recommendations are grouped in
four categories:
1. Utilization Management
2. Prevention Services
3. Intervention Services and
4. Policy Issues
Relevant findings precede each
recommendation. Anticipated out-
comes and implementation strate-
gies follow.
· See Appendices 4 and 6. Report of Cost
and Data Analysis; Report of Residential
Case File Research
~ See Appendix ~. Graphs of CaseType
Distribution
~ See Appendix 6. Report of Residential
Case File Research
Findings and Recommendations: Utilization Management
"Utilization management"refers to the activities and processes involved in assessing
service needs, selecting service providers, delivering, monitoring, evaluating, and
terminating services (see Appendix 7). Effective utilization management is critical
to providing the most appropriate and effective services and controlling costs.
FI NDING: There is insufficient personnel capacity and funding within our CSA
staff and committee structure to accomplish all the work necessary to effectively
manage the program and control costs. State funding for administrative costs is
only $30,380 per year, about two-tenths of one percent of the program's total2003
expenditures. City and County funds must pay the difference just to support one
administrative position, and additional staffing is needed. CSA agency staff and
the CSA Coordinator lack adequate time to conduct thorough case-speci§c utiliza-
tion review and system-wide utilization management. The work expected of the
CSA Coordinator constitutes two or three distinct jobs that cannot be effectively
performed by one person, contributing to frequent turnover. Benchmark localities
found to have better CSA cost experience typically have separate dedicated staff
positions for Family Assessment and Planning Team (FAPT) coordination, CSA
program management, and utilization management coordination: ~
FINDING: There is insufficient awareness of and case manager and staff attention
to vendor accountability and cost control
FINDING: There is limited information available about outcomes achieved by service
providers and the effectiveness of different treatment modalities they use. Case managers
rely mosffy on anecdotal experience and word-of-mouth in selecting service providers.
FINDING: Fees charged by service providers are not regulated (the state deregulated
them when CSA was created) and have increased significantly overtime, often substan-
tially more than the "cost of living. ,,2 Many vendors operate in a "sellers market."
FINDING: Several "best practice" localities with better CSA cost outcomes utilize one
"permanent"Family Assessment and Planning Team rather than the multiple-team
model used her¢ and credit it with improving service and cost outcomes.3
12
RECOMMENDATION NO, 1: The City and County governments should approve
the use of appropriated CSA funds to establish a full-time Utilization Manage-
ment (UM) Coordinator position to implement a comprehensive utilization
management system. This new position is essential to implementation of
other recommendations and strategies in this report. See job description in
Appendix 13.
Anticipated Outcomes: The substantial additional effort that is needed
in utilization management could be performed, resulting in less cost for
services due to better assurance that purchased services are necessary
and appropriate, provided by the best vendors, provided only to the ex-
tent needed and effective, and that intended service outcomes are clearly
established and monitored. Funds already appropriated for CSA services
may be used to pay for these activities, it is expected that resulting cost
savings would at least pay for the position and would likely produce a net
reduction in CSA service expenditures.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 2: The City and County governments should a ppro-
priate funds to establish a half-time FAPT Coordinator position to handle the
administrative responsibilities ofthe FAPTprocess. Manyofthe recommenda-
tions that follow require this position to implement.
Anticipated Outcomes: A designated support position to coordinate the
clerical functions of the FAPT process will enable the professional CSA
Coordinator to focus on program management functions that can have a
positive effect on cost control. See job descriptions in Appendix 13.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 3: The CSA Committee should form an im plementa-
tion team to establish a single-FAPT model by July 1,2004. The team should
consider costs, benefits, and organizational issues in the CSA partner agencies
to produce the design and plan for a new structure.
Anticipated Outcome: Based on the experience of benchmark localities
that use this model, expected outcomes include a consistently higher level
of expertise in the FAPT, better efficiency a nd effectiveness, and more con-
sistent attention to cost issues.
Utilization Management
Recommendations
Recommendations 1-3
1. Establish a full-time Utilization
Management (UM) Coordinator
position
2. Establish a half-time FAPT
Coordinator position
3. Establish a single-FAPT model
by July 1,2004
13
Utilization Management
Strategies
1. Review functions for efficiency.
2. Provide orientation and training for
case manager staff.
3. Oversee a standardized, systematic
reporting and auditing protocol.
4. Develop a shared resource database
for all CSA agencies.
5. Select service providers that use
effective service methodologies.
6. Require the"unbundling"of vendor
combined service packages.
7. Continue current efforts to limit
vendor rate increases.
8. Provide training on how to access
alternative funding sources.
9. Ensure that programs and fees are
structured to optimize non-CSA fund-
ing options.
10. Review local policies and proce-
dures on determining eligibility for
CSA foster Care prevention.
Implementation Strategies for Utilization Management
Strategy 1. The CSA Committee should review its functions, the functions of
its subcomm ittee the Case Authorization and Review Team, and the functions
and authority of CSA staff positions, and make any necessary changes for ef-
ficiency and effectiveness, of the system.
Anticipated Outcomes: Ensuring the optimum efficiency of this complex
system will result in better use of available resources to accomplish all
necessary tasks.
Strategy 2. The CSA staff should provide ongoing orientation and training
for case manager staff in the CSA agencies on vendor accountability and cost
issues and develop new tools for use by case managers and FAPTs to monitor
the CSA budget and expenditures.
Anticipated Outcomes: More consistent awareness, tools, and expertise
throughout the system should result in better and more clearly defined
outcomes from services and better cost control.
Strategy 3. The CSA Committee and UM Coordinator should oversee the
implementation ora standardizec~,systematic reporting and auditing protocol
for service providers, and collect, maintain,and disseminate information about
vendor program outcomes and cost effectiveness.
Anticipated Outcome: Vendor accountability will be improved and better
service outcomes can be achieved by selecting the most effective service
providers
Strategy 4. The UM Coordinator should develop a shared resource database
for all CSA agencies where staffcan record and review evaluative information
on service providers.
Anticipated Outcomes: Case managers will have a tool to select the best
service providers, increasing service effectiveness. Effective services can
reduce duration of services, reducing costs.
14
Strategy 5. The CSA Committee should ensure that necessary information is available
for agency case ma nagers to select service providers that use service methodologies
of proven effectiveness whenever available.
Anticipated Outcome: Service outcomes for children and families will be im-
proved though the use of proven practices. The need for multiple placements
and extended services will be reduced, resulting in less cost.
Strategy 6. The CSA Committee and UM Coordinator should revise our contractual
terms and conditions for vendors to require the "unbundling" of combined service
packages.
Anticipated Outcome: Only those services deemed strictly necessary would be
purchased, reducing cost.
Strategy 7. The CSA Committee and UM Coordinator should continue current efforts
to limit vendor rate increases and explore all opportunities to negotiate lower rates
or limit rate increases.
Anticipated Outcome: To the extent service fee increases can be controlled,
costs will be reduced.
Strategy 8. The CSA Coordinator and UM Coordinator should provide ongoing training
to case managers in the CSA agencies on how to access alternative funding sources.
strategy 9. The CSA Committee and staffshould negotiate with service providers and
offer them technical assistance to ensure that programs and fees are structured to
optimize non-CSA funding options such as Medicaid.
Anticipated Outcomes: The consistent use of alternative sources of service fund-
lng, including Title IV-E and Medicaid, will save local dollars.
Strategy 10. The CSA Committee should review local policies and procedures on
determining eligibility for CSA foster care prevention and, if needed, clarify or revise
them.
Anticipated Outcome: Clarity and consistency of criteria for foster care preven-
tion eligibility will ensure cost effectiveness of those services.
Utilization
Management
Strategies
15
Prevention
Services
Recommendations 4-6:
4. Establish two new Foster Care
Prevention social worker positions in
Social Services
5. Continued funding support for
foster care prevention progra ms
such as Brig ht Stars and the Family
Support Program.
6. Direct additional local funding
support to other prevention service
programs using models with
demonstrated success for
children age 11 and older.
~ See Appendix ], Graphs of Case Type
Distribution
%ee ~ppendix 8. Report of In-Home
Service Case File Research
a Outcome Data; Bright Stars and Family
Support Programs, AIbemarle County
Department of Social Services
II. Prevention Services
CSA costs a re d rive n p ri m a ri ly by t h e n u m b e r of c h i ld re n req u i red to be served.
The majority of those children are in foster care, and the second largest group
is Special Education students. Although CSA costs in our localities are rela-
tively high, this is due mainly to high caseloads and the increasing severity of
children's needs; our average cost per case is the same or lower than the state
average. Preventing children from entering foster care and reducing the need
for out-of-school special education services is the single best way to control
CSA costs.
FINDING: /n recent years older children, ages 12 and up, have become a larger
percentage of the foster care CSA caseload. They are typically more dif-Scult and
costly to place and serve?
FINDING: The rate of children in foster care in both the City and County exceeds
the state average (36.9 per 1,000 children in the City, 8.4 in the County, and an
average of 4.4 statewide, the national average is 7.5). Rates of children coming
before the juvenile court are also high, and this is the avenue by which most chil-
dren enter foster care. The number of children in foster care appears to reflect ~
community philosophy that is especially proactive in preventing children from
"falling through the cracks."
FINDING: Reduction ofthe number of children in foster care will reduce CSA costs.
Existing foster care prevention programs have documented success but lack the
capacity to serve all children at high risk of placement?
RECOMMENDATION NO.4: The City should take advantage of available federal
funds in the Title iV-E Foster Care prog ram to establish two new Foster Care
Prevention social worker positions in Social Services. These funds can be ac-
cessed with a 50% local match. See job description in Appendix 13.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 5: The County should ensure continued funding
support for foster care prevention programs such as Bright Stars and the Fam-
ily Support Program.6
16
RECOMMENDATION NO. 6: City Council and the Board of Supervisors should
direct additional local funding support to other prevention service programs
using models with demonstrated success for children age 11 a nd older, guided
by data on service effectiveness available from the CCF and its Budget Review
Team.
Anticipated Outcome: Reduction of the number of children in foster care
will reduce CSA costs. The average cost for the various types of foster care
placements is over $50,000 per year. For children requiring intensive resi-
dential treatment, the average cost is over $100,000 per year. in contrast,
the average cost of foster care prevention services purchased from public
and private provider agencies is about $11,000 per year, and the cost of
prevention services provided directly by a Social Services prevention worker
in the City's Social Services department is about $2,000 a year per case.
III. Intervention Services
The CSA program intervenes when children require removal from their homes
and placement in foster care or when their special education needs cannot
be met in the local schools. Activities involved include assessment of service
needs, service plan development, and provision of services by staff in the local
CSA agencies and through purchase from other service providers.
FINDING: High foster care caseloads (currently at least 3$% higher in the Citythan
maximums recommended by the Child Welfare League of America and the Council
on Accreditation of Services for Families and Children) contribute to more frequent
use of purchased services and placements that can last longer than necessary. Ex-
cessive caseloads also contribute to staff turnover, which perpetuates high caseloads
and diminishes service effectiveness due to reduced continuity of care. 7
RECOMMENDATION NO 7: City Council and the Board of Supervisors should
establish sufficient social worker positions to ensure that foster care caseloads
do not exceed the maximums established by recognized national standards.
Intervention
Services
' See Appendix 7. Utilization Manage-
ment Report
17
Intervention
Services
Recommendations 7-8
7. Establish sufficient social worker
positions so that caseloads do not
exceed the maximums established by
recognized national standards.
8. Continue to strengthen social
services staff retention efforts.
Anticipated Outcome: Reduction of work overloads in foster care will allow
social workers adequate time to manage cases effectively, reduce reliance
on purchased case management services, and move children through and
out of foster care more efficiently.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 8: The City and County Departments of Social
Services should continue to strengthen staff retention efforts, with particular
attention to caseload size and salary, and to effectively manage transitions
between staff to ensure continuity of care.
Anticipated Outcome: Lower staff turnover will mean a better trained
and more experienced workforce, resulting in services of more consistent
effectiveness which will contribute to cost control.
FINDING: When children must be placed out of home on an emergency basis,
there is often no local resource for placement due to severe behavior problems
which local foster homes or facilities cannot manage. In these situations there may
not be an opportunity to conduct a thorough assessment of problems and service
needs priorto placement. This can contribute to unnecessarily high cost if children
must be placed in more intensive treatment than would be necessary if there was
opportunity for better assessment. 8
~ See Appendices 3 and 7. Graph of Case-
load Growth: Utilization Management
Report
9 See Appendix 3 Graph of Casefoad
Growth
FINDING: Some children, especially those with the most challenging problems,
are rejected by or ejected from multiple treatment facilities. A group of high needs
children studied were found to have been ejected from an average of 2.9 facilities
that were unable to meet their needs. Some of this is attributed to the inability to
conduct a thorough initial assessment of the child's needs due to the mandatory
and emergency need for placement. 9
18
RECOMMENDATION NO. 9: The City and County governments should sup-
port the CSA Committee in developing a local program or system to provide
CSA-purchased comprehensive multidisciplinary assessment of any child who
requires it.
Anticipated Outcome: Better assurance that services and treatment
programs selected are as appropriate as possible and therefore more
effective, reduction ofthe need for emergency placements out of the
community before a complete assessment of needs is available, and
reduction of the likelihood of placement disruption by ejection.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 10: The community should develop and imple-
ment local programs or facilities to accept and stabilize any child in a crisis
situation who needs a CSA-funded emergency placement. There is space
presently underutilized at the Blue Ridge Detention Center which could
be considered for alternative programming of this type.
Anticipated Outcome: Children will not have to be placed in high
cost out-of-community facilities solely due to the emergency need
for placement. Temporary local placement and stabilization will allow
for better assessment and service planning before proceeding with
treatment.
Intervention
Services
Recommendations 9:10
9. Develop a local system to provide
CSA-purchased comprehensive
multidisciplinary assessment of any
child who requires it.
10. The community should develop
and implement local programs or
facilities for children in a crisis situa-
tion needing CSA-funded emergency
placement.
FINDING: Since 1997, there have been increasing numbers of autistic chil-
dren served through CSA, particularly in the County. [Cite numbers here] These
children are typically among the most expensive to serve. The average cost of
such placements can exceed $200,000 per year.
19
Strategies for
Intervention Services
o in FY 2002, the City and County's foster
home program was unable to place 21
children due to insufficient numbers of
available foster families, As a resLdt these
children had to be placed in more costly
settings.
~'Work[ng Draft of THE INFORMATION
SHARING PROJECT:A Report and Update
by the ~nformation Sharing Subcommit-
tee of the Juvenile Justice Advisory
m[ttee December 2003.
~ See Appendix 5: Subcommittee Mem-
ber Survey
Implementation Strategies for Intervention Services
FINDING: Placement in foster homes, inclUding specialized "treatment" foster care,
is usually less costly than residential facilities, and more likely to be local; however,
there are not enough available foster homes to fully meet the need. In FY2002,
the City and County's foster home program was unable to place 21 children due
to insuffcient numbers of available foster families. As a result these children had
to be placed in more costly settings. 7o
FINDING: Multiple agencies often work simultaneously with the same child and
family. Improved communication among service providers may enhance service
efficiency and effectiveness. ~
FINDING: Legal requirements for proof of"reasonable efforts" to prevent removal
of children and to reunify families after removal contribute significantly to CSA costs
and may result in provision of services that have little chance for effectiveness. ~2
Strategy 1. The Departments of Social Services, in collaboration with local private set-
vice providers, should continue and increase efforts to develop strategiesto increase
the pool of foster homes able to accept children with a wide range of needso
Anticipated Outcome: The ability to serve more children locally in this kind
of placement will save money and potentially improve service outcomes.
Strategy 2. The Commission should support and encourage development of
a better system for interagency information sharing.
Anticipated Outcome: Red uction of d u piicative efforts to gather informa-
tion needed to provide services will increase efficiency, and better coordina-
tion of services provided will improve outcomes and help control costs.
Strategy 3. The CSA Committee should consider whether a dialog with Juvenile
Court judges on the issue of reasonable efforts could be helpful, and proceed
to do so if indicated.
Anticipated Outcome: If judicial expectations in this area can be clarified
CSA doJlars could potentially be saved by reducing the level of services
provided and moving children out of foster care faster.
2O
V. Policy Issues
Changes in several policy areas could help reduce costs in the CSA program. The
Subcommittee recommends that the local governments include these issues in
their annual legislative agendas and advocate for them wherever possible:
State funds for CSA administration. The state funding provided for local
CSA administrative costs is only $30,380 per year, about 0.2% of total CSA expen-
ditures in FY2003. There has been only one small increase in nine years, even
as mandated administrative requirements have steadily grown. The localities
currently supplement their formula match for these funds to support our CSA
administrative staffing level, which is not sufficient for optimal effectiveness;
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11: Increasing state funding for local CSA ad-
ministrative costs is a legislative priority for the Virginia Municipal League
(VML) and Virginia Association of Counties (VACo), and should also be
included in City and County legislative proposals.
Court Services Unit caseloads. High caseloads in the Court Services Unit
can contribute to more frequent use of purchased services, placements that
can last longer than necessary, and increased staff turnover.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 12: The State Department of Juvenile Justice and
the General Assembly should provide the necessary resources to add staff
positions to reduce caseloads to recommended levels and allow adequate
time to manage cases effectively.
Court dispositions for delinquent youth. Due to changes in state law in
2000,Juvenile Court judges have less discretion to place delinquent children in
JuVenile Justice facilities. 73 This results in more of these children being placed
in foster care, where they are often unamenable to services yet very expensive
to place and serve.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 13: The CSA Committee and staff should
examine whether delinquent children are being placed in foster care
Policy Issues
Recommendations 11-13
11. Include increased state funding
for CSA in City and County legislative
proposals.
12. State Department of Juvenile
Justice and the General Assembly
should provide the necessary
resources to add staff.
13. Examine whether delinquent
children are being placed in foster
care when less costly alternatives are
available.
~ See Appendix 12b: Report of Legal
Research
21
Policy Issues
Recommendations 14-15
14. The City and County should advo-
cate for relief from state cost shifting
and support VML and VACo legislative
positions on this issue.
15. City Council and the Board of
Supervisors should bring the problem
ofTitle IV-E eligibility to the attention
of their Congressional delegation
and urge them to update eligibility
guidelines.
~ See Appendix 74: Articles on National
T~ends
~ See Appendix 74: Articles on National
Trends
when less costly alternatives are available that are equally effective. If
indicated, legislative recommendations should be developed or the
issue should be discussed with the Juvenile Court judges to determine
if some of these cases can be diverted from the CSA program. ~4
State-to-local cost shifting. Public residential mental health treatment
facilities for children have been virtually eliminated in the Commonwealth.
Children with serious mental and emotional impairments who in the past
would have been placed in state facilities now must be served by private
programs with CSA funds, shifting costs for these services from state to local
government? The CSA Committee should further consider this finding and
develop state legislative recommendations for consideration by the City
and County to reduce cost shifting and save local CSA dollars.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 14: The City and County should advocate
for relief from state cost shifting and support VML and VACo legislative
positions on this issue.
Title IV-E funding eligibility guidelines. Title IV-E of the Social Se-
curity Act provides federal funds to states to pay some foster care costs for
eligible children. These funds require no localr match, so their use reduces
local CSA costs. Despite rigorous and successful local efforts to identify
children eligible for Title IV-E funds, the percentage of eligible children is
decreasing due to family income eligibility guidelines that have been frozen
for many years.
RECOMMENDATION NO. 15: City Council and the Board of Supervi-
sors should bring this problem to the attention of their Congressional
delegation and urge them to update eligibility guidelines.
22
CONCLUSION
The CSA program is a state mandate that must be administered locally as a
matter of law. All children in the mandate categories must be servea, and
caseloads have g town steadily. Costs are driven primarily by the number of
cases, the severity of children's service needs, and fees charged by service
providers.
Charlottesville and Albemarle have had substantial success in implementing
CSA, but the program has become increasingly complex and challenging to
manage. The profile of the CSA program in Charlottesville and Albemarle
today is minimal staffing and steadily increasing caseloads and costs. The
program is administratively complex and challenging to manage, and our
local CSA system is overburdened. State funding for administrative costs
is insufficient to manage the program as effectively as possible. CSA staff
in the Commission office, interagency personnel on the various CSA work
groups, and staff in the several local CSA agencies have devoted enormous
time and effort to designing and administering the system to be as efficient
and cost effective as possible. Localities with better CSA cost experience
typically have double or triple the administrative staff of Charlottesville
and Albemarle. Additional system improvements possible with currently
available resources are likely to be marginal. There is no simple solution
to the CSA cost dilemma.
Improved cost control through prevention, better utilization management,
and development of greater service ca pacity is possible, but the investment
of new resources is needed for optimal success. Subcommittee members
believe there will be a return on investment in excess of the new resources
committed.
staff in the CSA agencies and CCF office can implement some parts of these
recommendations with existing resources; however, the following actions
Conclusion
Improved cost control through
prevention, better utilization
management, and development of
greater service capacity is possible,
but the investment of new resources
is needed for optimal success.
23
ConclUsion
by City and County government are necessary to accomplish most of the cost control
measures recommended in this report:
· Establish a Utilization Management Coordinator position.
· Establish a pa rt-time FAPT Coordinator position.
· Establish two additional Foster Care Prevention Social Workers in the City's
Department of Social Services.
· Support adequate foster care program staffing in the Departments of Social Services
as needed to ensure caseloads do not exceed recommended levels.
· Support continued funding for the County's Bright Stars and Family Support
Programs.
· Direct additional funding support to other prevention service programs with demon-
strated success for children age 11 and older.
· Advocate legislatively for changes in state and federal policy.
L~st of ^ppendices
1. Graphs on Case Type Distribution
2. Graph of cost growth
3. Graph of caseload growth
4. Report of Cost and Data Analysis
5. Subcommittee Membe~ Survey Instrument
6. Report of Residential Case File Research
7. Utilization Management Report
8. Report of In-Home Services Case File Research
9. Report of Best Practice Locality Research
10. Report of Case Manager Interviews
1 t. Report of Foster Care Prevention Statistical Research
72. Reports of Legal Research (2)
13. Job Descriptions for CSA Coordinator, FAPT Coordinator, UM Coordinator
14. Articles on national trends
24
Cost Containment Acknowledgements
This report is the result of many hours of diligent effort by
committee members and others. Gretchen Ellis completed an
analysis of fiscal data. Erin Sutfin reviewed case files of youth in
extended and costly placements to identify trends. Buz Cox and
Paul McWhinney presented research about effective utiliza tion
management practices. Gretchen Ellis Dana Neidley, and Cheryl
Lewis researched utilization and impact of in.-home preventa-
tive services. Erin Sutfin and Paul McWhinney interviewed CSA
staff in corn munities with favorable cost containment outcomes
to identify best practices. Katie Bullard conducted structured
interviews with CSA case managers, Allyson Davies researched
legal issues related to CSA Buz Cox wrote this report, with as-
sistance from other committee members. Amber Zavada of
the Commission on Children and Families formatted the report.
Their hard work and the work of the committee as a whole is
gratefully acknowledged.
BOARD -TO -BOARD
February 4, 2004 - 10:30 a.m.
A Monthly Communications Report of activities from the Albem~Ol ~Tf~~e
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Dato: ~___~_~'
RECENT Agonda ~em ~:__~
C~erk's Initials: ~
· FY 2004-2005 BUDGET: In November, the SChool Board directed the Superintendent to prepare a
needs-based budget as required by the Code of Virginia. On January 21, the Superintendent presented
his funding request to thc Board, and over thc last several weeks School Board members have been
asking questions and learning more about the request. Our'public hearing was rescheduled to
Wednesday, February I 1th, beginning at 6:30 p.m. in thc Auditorium. The Superintcndcnt's Proposed
Funding Request totals $115,431,378, and would require $2,708,632 more in funding than is projected
at this time based on a 74¢ tax rate. That same funding request, based on the 76¢ tax rate, would
require an additional $1.6 million. The initiative driving this funding request is employee
compensation. Attachment l is a copy of our budget calendar. Attachment 2 is a copy of the School
Division Goals. Attachment 3 is a copy of the School Board/Superintendent Priorities.
LONG-RANGE PLANNING: At the January 22nd meeting, the School Board received a report of
proposed develOPments in the county from Wayne Cilimberg. We are aware that close
communication~ especially with A1 Reaser's staff, has always been a part of the planning process and
we appreciate the opportunity to talk and ask questions of Mr. Cilimberg. The School Board will also
meet soon to discuss priorities and positions for long-range planning, especially important at this time
as we have 3 new Board members. After that discussion, direction will be provided to the Long-
Range Planning Committee at a separate meeting.
FINGERPRINTING: At the January 22nd meeting, the School Board approved spending $16,500 on
the Cross Match ID 500 fingerprinting system. This system will allow the school division to receive
information from fingerprints back in 48 hours rather than waiting an approximate 3 months, as with
the current process.
NEW POLICY PROPOSAL: At our January 29th budget work session, Dr. Castner asked that the
Board review a proposal that would allow Albemarle County employees, who do not live in Albemarle
County, to place their children in our schools on a tuition and space available basis. The full proposal
will be brought to the Board to consider in the near future.
FUTURE ITEMS
COMPENSATION REPORT: We are sorry that we have not been able to meet jointly to discuss
the compensation report. It is our understanding that Ms. Suyes will be providing additional
information on Part II of the November Compensation Report to both Boards. I hope that we will
have a chance at the March 17th School Board Funding Request presentation to continue our
discussion on this issue.
2004-05 Budget Request Agenda
Albemarle County School Board Meeting Schedule
Date:
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Review Topic:
School Board Work Session, 5:30 p.m.
Overview of Human Resources and Administrative Services
Request
· ComPensation and Benefits
Ms. Steele Howen, Executive Director for Administrative Services
Department of Human Resources Staff
Thursday, February 5, 2004
Wednesday, February 11, 2004
Thursday, February 12, 2004
School Board Work Session, 5:30 p.m. (4 Hour worksession)
Overview of Instructional Support Request (School Technology,
Assessment and Information Services, Federal Programs, Grants
and Community Education, Regular Instruction including fine arts,
gifted, media services and staff development) and an Overview of
Support Services Request (Transportation, Building Services,
School lunch program)
Dr. Diane Behrens, Executive Director.for Support Services
Department of Support Services Staff
Dr. Pamela Moran, Assistant Superintendent for Instruction
Department of Instruction Staff
Public Hearing on the 2004-05 Budget Request, 6:30 p.m.
School Board Meeting and Work Session, 6:30 p.m.
Overview of Schools, CATEC, Special Education, PREP and
Leadership Team Request
Central School Division and Principals
Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
School Board Work Session, 5:30 p.m.
Final Discussion of School Board's Proposal
Jackson Zimmermann, Executive Director of Fiscal Services
· Completion of School Board Budget Request
Presentation of the 2004-05 County Executive's Budget
Request, 6:00 p.m.
Presentation of School Board Funding Request to
Board of Supervisors and Joint Work Session, 1:00 p.m.
Mrs. Diantha McKeel, School Board Chairperson
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
MISSION
The primary mission of Albemarle County Schools is to provide and promote a dynamic environment
for learning through which all students acquire thg knowledge, skills and values necessary to live as
informed and productive members of society.
GOALS
Albemarle County Public Schools will nurture a climate that promotes trust, idea sharing and sensitivity to
student needs and ensure a healthy environment for intellectual development for all children. To provide
such an environment, we will ensure that:
Student Performance Standards
· The primary purpose of all disciplines is for students to.apply knowledge,' facts, concepts and
skills in new situations.
School Climate and Board Adopted Values
· All schools will promotean environment conducive to learning in which all members of the
school community practice the system's' established core Values.
Feeder Pattern Support
· Individual'schools will operate in feeder patterns that provide consistent, comprehensive
opportunities and early intervention strategies for students to acquire the knowledge and
demonstrate sound physical, mental and emotional health.
Curriculum and Staff Development
· Curriculum development and implementation, including staff development, will be a
dynamic process which supports student learning. A primary focus will be in reading, math,
written and ora] communication, science and social studies.
Extended School Community
· Schools will welcome and encourage involvement of parents~ community members, and
businesses. Working together, we will ensure that all students develop the skills and abilities
to be contributing members of the community.
,,EVIDENCE
Indicators to provide evidence of progress toward each goal's attainment are found in the system's Strategic Plan
for a Total School System Commitment to the School Improvement Process.~ A Progress Report, which outlines
the division's performance on these indicators, is issued annually by the Superintendent.
Amended November 8, 1999
A-17
Board/Superintendent Priorities
2002-2004
Goal I: Student Performance Standards
l
Priority 1.1
Standards of Accreditation/Exceed 90% success in Math and English,, .
1.1.1
By June 30, 2004, all schools will be fully accredited under the changed state standards that will 'be
implemented in 2003-04~
1.1.2
By June 30, 2004, all students will graduate through acquisition of the coursework and verified
credits necessary to obtain a diploma or satisfactory completion of an Individualized Education
Plan (IEP).
1.1.3
By June 30, 2004, sub-populations of students specified in the federal 'No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 will demonstrate adequate yearly progress towards a 90% SOL pass rate in math and English
at each school.
Prioritv 1.2 ~ Academic Progress of High Achieving Students
1.2.1 By June 30, 2004, the percentage of students scoring at the advanced level on each SOL test and' in
the top quartile of the Stanford 9 test will meet targeted increases as approved by the Board.
1.2.2
By June 30, 2004, the percentage of students earning an Advanced Studies Diploma, the percentage
of high school graduates taking one or more college level courses, and the percentage of students in
grades 9-12 taking at least one Advanced Placement test will meet target increases as approved by
the Board.
1.2.3 By June 30, 2004 a report documenting the implementation of K-12 plans to increase access to
higher-level classes for students will be presented to the Board.
Goal 2: School Climate and Board Adopted Values I
Priori~
2.1 Equity and Diversity
2.1.1
By June 30, 2004, a staff member in each school will provide building-based equity and diversity
workshops and specific focus on closing achievement gaps in core academic areas'.
Approved September 11, 2003 A- 18
IImplementation Focus Areas for Board Monitoring and Review
Division Support I: Technology Infrastructure Development/Maintenance
DS 1.1 By June 30, 2004, the division will develop and implement a funding support plan to institute a
phased-in replacement cycle for all instructional and administrative computers and the issuance of laptop
computers to licensed instructional staff in the division.
Division Support II: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
DS III; lBy December, 2003 an assessment will be conducted to determine division structures needed to
implement the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and a report made to the Board.
Research and Develonment Focus Areas
I
Community se~:Vice and service learning in middle and high schools
Implementation of redistricting planning procedures
Direct School Health Advisory Board to develop a plan to promote a healthy school environment (i.e.
nutrition, physical education, bullying, and mental health)
Approved September 11, 2003 A-20
lade Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
County of Albemarle
Community Recreational Facilities
Needs Assessment Study
Phase I
BAIJ,ARD:~KING
& ASSOCIATES LTD
With
Leisure Vision
November 11, 2003
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 1
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Section I - Demographic Analysis
To provide a foundation for determining future demands for recreational facilities for the
County of Albemarle, Virginia a demographic analysis for the county has been
undertaken.
The following is a summary of the basic demographic characteristics of the County of
Albemarle as well as the City of Charlottesville and a comparison with national
demographic statistics.
County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville: The primary market for any
recreation facilities would clearly be the residents of the County of Albemarle. However,
the fact that the city of Charlottesville sits in the middle of the county and the past
partnerships between the two governmental entities to provide recreation facilities and
programs suggests that their demographic characteristics need to be examined as well.
The County of Albemarle occupies approximately 726 square miles (465,040 acres) in
the Northem Blue Ridge and Northern Piedmont of Virginia. The county's major urban
areas include the development areas around Charlottesville, Scottsville and Crozet, but
about 690 square miles are rural areas.
Population Numbers:
2000 Census 2003 Est. 2008 Proj.
County of Albemarle
84,186 88,831 96,915
City of Charlottesville
40,009 40,317 41,176
Total 124,195 129,148 138,091
Source - U.S. Census Bureau, ESRI and County of Albemarle.
The demographic statistics for the County of Albemarle will be analyzed for this study
with references to the City of Charlottesville.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 1
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Population
Albemarle the following comparisons are possible.
Distribution by Age: Utilizing census information from the County of
Albemarle - from 2003 ESRI census estimate
Nat. Pop~ Diff.
Table- A
-5 5,241 5.9% 6.7% -.8%
5-17 15,812 17.8% 18.3% -.5%
18,24 7,106 8.0% 10.2% -2.2%
25-44 25,494 28.7% 28.8% -.1%
45-54 14,213 16.0% 14.1% +1.9%
55-64 9,238 10.4% 9.5% +.9%
65+ 11,726 13.2% 12.4% +.8%
Population- 2003 census estimate in the different age groups in the county.
% of Total- Percentage of the service area population in the age group.
National Population- Percentage of the national population in the age group.
Difference- Percentage difference between the county population and the
national population.
Chart- A
30.0%,
20.0~
15.0%,
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
-5 5yrs- 18-24 25-44 45-54 55-64 65+
17
r: county of Albemarle I
National Population
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 2
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
The demographic makeup of the County of Albemarle, when compared to the
characteristics of the national population, indicates that there is a larger middle aged adult
and senior population and a slightly smaller youth, young adult and adult population.
When the characteristics of the City of Charlottesville are compared there are radical
differences with a much smaller youth, adult, and senior population and a much higher
18-24 age group. These traits reflect the presence of the University of Virginia and their
approximate 18,000 students.
Population Distribution Comparison by Age: Utilizing census information from
County of Albemarle, the following comparisons are possible.
County of Albemarle - from census information and ESRI.
Table- B
i~'~ 2000~pop~ ,i'' 2003:Pop~' .2008 Pop. % :Change
-5 5,220 5,241 5,524 +5.8%
5-17 15,659 15,812 16,379 +4.6%
18-24 6,146 7,106 8,625 +40.3%
25-44 26,013 25,494 24,907 -4.3%
45-54 12;796 14,213 15,894 +24.2%
55-64 7,745 9,238 12,017 +55.2%
65+ 10,607 11,726 13,568 +27.9%
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 3
County of Albemarle Commtmity Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Chart- B
30,000-
25,000.
20,000.
15,000.
10,000.
5,000.
0
-5 5yrs-17 18-24 25.44 45-54 55-64 65+
Table-B looks at the growth or decline in age group numbers from the 2000 census until
the year 2008. It is projected that in all age groups there will be a significant increase in
population with the exception of the 25-44 category that will show a slight decline. The
greatest growth is projected to occur in the 55-64, 18-24, and 65+ age categories.
However, it must be remembered that the population of the United States as a whole is
aging and it is common to find negative growth numbers in the younger age groups and
net gains nearing 20% in the 45 plus age groupings in communities with more stable
population bases. With this in mind the projections for Albemarle are especially strong
in the young adult and youth categories. Again the presence of the University of Virginia
may explain the anticipated large jump in the college age category.
Once again the statistics for the City of Charlottesville were reviewed and there are a
number of differences. The population has a whole in the city is only expected to grow
slightly in the next five years and most of the age categories are actually projecting a
decline (-5, 5-17, 25-44, and 65+). The only age categories expecting an increase are in
the college student age group and the middle aged adult. Except for the 18-24 age
category this scenario more closely mirrors the national numbers.
Next, the median age and household income levels are compared with the national
numbers. Both of these factors are primary determiners of participation in sports and
recreation activities (see Table-C). The lower the median age the higher the participation
rates are for most activities. The level of participation also increases as the income level
goes up.
Ballard*King and AssoCiates w/th Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 4
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Median Age:
2000 Census 2003 Est. 2008 Proj.
County of Albemarle 37.3 38.6 40.4
City of Charlottesville 25.7 25.5 25.0
Nationally 35.3 36.0 37.1
Chart- C
· Albemarle
· Charlottesville
[] Nationally
2000 2003 2008
While the median age is close to the national numbers in the county, the city due to the
number of university students is well below the national median age.
Median Household Income:
2000 Census 2003 Est. 2008 Proj.
County of Albemarle
City of Charlottesville
Nationally
$50,792 $58,862 $72,847
$31,002 $35,100 $42,238
$42,164 $46,615 $54,319
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 5
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Chart- D
$80,000.00 ~ . :.
$70,000.00 ' '..'
$60,000.00 .
$50,000.00
$40,000.00
$30,000.00
$2O,OOO.OO
$10,oo0.00
$o.oo
2000 2003 2008
·Albemarle
· Charlottesville
[] Nationally
The median household income level must be balanced against the cost of living for the
area to determine possible discretionary income available for recreation purposes. With
the income levels for the county significantly above the national levels and despite the
relatively high cost of living (compared to other areas of the United States) there is still a
potential for a reasonably high level of discretionary income for recreation purposes. The
city has a considerably lower median household income level but this is due to presence
of the large UVA student population.
Ethnicity:
County of Albemarle- 2000 Census- 84,186
Table- C
~ce' p
op. ~/o of ~Tot.
White 70,379 83.6%
Black/African Amer. 8,166
9.7%
Asian 2,441 2.9%
Hispanic/Latino 2,189 2.6%
Amer. Indian/Alaska
168 .2%
Other 1,010 1.2%
Note: Totals above do not equal 100% as some individuals are in more than one race
category.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 6
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Urban vs. Rural: There is a noticeable division in the county between the more
developed portion of the county (around the City of Charlottesville and areas extending
north and west) and the balance which is more rural.
County of Albemarle- Changes in urban and rural population (2000 figures are based on a
total population estimate of 81,242)
Table- D
!ear,, '
Dev. Area~ RUral,~ea Total
1990 28,032 38,943 66,975
1993 30,834 37,443 68,277
1994 32,714 37,443 71,052
1996 33,063 41,109 74,172
1997 34,220 42,187 76,407
1998 35,273 42,310 77,583
1999 36,400 42,769 79,169
2000 37,625 43,617 81,242
This table indicates that in the year 2000 almost 54% of the county's population is
located in the rural areas of the county (note these figures do not match up with the
overall projections for total population in the county as they were taken from different
sources).
Other demographic characteristics for the urban region of the county were also compared
with the more rural areas. Key findings include:
Ethnicity: The urban areas of the county have a higher percentage of minorities than
the more rural areas. The more rural southern portion of the county is the most
ethnically diverse while the northwest area is the least.
Age Distribution: With the influence of the University of Virginia, the urban areas of
the county have a higher percentage of the population in the young adult (18-24) and
adult (25-44) age categories and a lower middle aged (45-64) population. Within the
rural areas of the county there are larger youth numbers (5-17) and middle aged
residents with lower young adult and adult numbers. When specific rural areas are
analyzed there is general uniformity across all regions with very little variance.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 7
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Median Household Income: The urban area has a significantly lower median
household income than the rural areas of the county. Again the influence of the
University of Virginia is probably at least partially responsible for this fact. Further
breakdown of the rural areas indicates that the northwest area has the highest income
while the southern portion has the lowest.
Demographic Summary:
The population level of the County of Albemarle is expected to show strong growth
during the 2000's.
· The population density is medium to low.
· The median age is slightly above the national numbers.
· Household size is-slightly higher than the national average.
· Median household income is significantly higher than the national levels.
· The predominate race is White with Blacks, Asians and Hispanics making up the
balance.
The demographics for the City of Charlottesville are somewhat different from the
county with relatively slow growth, a younger median age, and lower median
household income level. However the presence of the University of Virginia explains
these factors.
· The urban areas of the county have a younger more ethnically diverse population with
lower incomes when compared to the rural regions.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 8
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Section II - Recreation Activities Participation
It is beneficial to examine rates of participation in a variety of sports, recreation and
cultural arts activities to determine the relative strength of the market for certain
recreation activities. Each year, the National Sporting Goods Association (NSGA)
conducts a rather in depth study of how Americans spend their leisure time and this
information has been utilized to determine possible participation numbers. In addition a
study that was commissioned by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in 1997
was also referenced to determine possible participation levels in a variety of cultural arts
activities. While not as comprehensive as the NSGA study the NEA information is still
of value in the planning process.
Comparison With National Statistics: Utilizing information from the National
Sporting Goods Association and comparing them with the demographics from the County
of Albemarle the following participation projections can be made (statistics were
compared based on age, household income, regional population and national population).
Participation Estimates - County of Albemarle from the National Sporting Goods
Association (based on 2003 population estimates) for sports activities.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 9
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Table- E
·-~ : Nation
Aerobics 9.9% 9.4% 9.8% 9.7% 9.7%
Baseball 7.4% 5.6% 4.8% 5.9% 5.9%
Basketball 11.9% 10.6% 10.7% 11.2% 11.1%
Bike Riding 17.5% 15.1% 14.1% 15.5% 15.6%
Canoeing 3.2% 2.6% 2.9% 2.7% 2.9%
Exer/equip 19.9% 16.9% 16.7% 17.1% 17.7%
Exer. Walk 30.0% 28.7% 29.8% 28.3% 29.2%
Figure Skating 2.9% 2.0% 1.6% 2.1% 2.2%
Fishing 18.5% 15.3% 12.6% 15.6% 15.5%
Football 4.0% 3.2% 3.1% 3.4% 3.4%
Ice Hockey 1.0% .8% .3% .9% .8%
Martial Arts 2.3% 1.9% 1.8% 2.0% 2.0%
Mtn. Biking 2.4% 2.4% 2.2% 2.5% 2.4%
Racquetball .9% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3% 1.2%
Roller Hockey 1.2% .9% .5% .9% .9%
Running/jog 10.1% 9.3% 9.9% 9.8% 9.8%
Skateboarding 4.5% 3.6% 3.5% 3.8% 3.9%
Soccer 6.8% 5.2% 4.8% 5.5% 5.6%
Softball 6.9% 5.0% 3.9% 5.3% 5.3%
Swimming 25.7% 21.3% 22.8% 21.8% 22.9%
Tennis 4.5 % 4.2% 5.2% 4.3 % 4.6%
Volleyball 5.0% 4.5% 3.9% 4.8% 4.6%
Workout Club 11.5% 10.3% 11.0% 10.5% 10.8%
Income- Participation based on the 2003 estimated median household income in the county.
Age (avg.)- Participation based on averaging participation by different age groups in the county.
Region- Participation based on regional statistics (South Atlantic, U.S.).
Nation- Participation based on national statistics.
Average- Participation based on the average of the other four categories.
When looking at participation rates in various recreation activities, the National Sporting
Goods Association uses four different determiners for their percentages. Utilizing the
average of these four categories takes into consideration each of the factors that can
influence participation rates.
Anticipated Participation Numbers by Activity: Utilizing the average percentage from
Table- E above plus the 2000 census information and census estimates for 2003 and 2008
(over age 5).
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 10
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Table- F
Average
Aerobics 9.7%
Baseball 5.9%
Basketball 11.1%
Bike Riding 15.6%
Canoeing 2.9%
Exer/equip 17.7%
Exer. Walk 29.2%
Figure Skating 2.2%
Fishing 15.5%
Football 3.4%
Ice Hockey .8%
Martial Arts 2.0%
Mtn. Biking 2.4%
Racquetball 1.2%
Roller Hockey .9%
Running/Jog 9.8%
Skateboarding 3.9%
Soccer 5.6%
Softball 5.3%
Swimming 22.9%
Tennis 4.6%
Volleyball 4.6%
Workout Club 10.8%
2000 Part. 2003 Part. 2008 Part. Difference
7,660 8,108 8,865 1,205
4,659 4,932 5,392 733
8,765 9,278 10,144 1,379
12,319 13,040 14,257 1,938
2,290 2,424 2,650 360
13,977 14,795 16,176 2,199
23,058 24,408 26,686 3,628
1,737 1,839 2,011 274
12,240 12,956 14,166 1,926
2,685 2,842 3,107 422
632 669 731 99
1,579 1,672 1,828 249
1,895 2,006 2,193 298
948 1,003 1,097 149
711 752 823 112
7,739 8,192 8,956 1,217
3,080 3,260 3,564 484
4,422 4,681 5,118 696
4,185 4,430 4,844 659
18,083 19,142 20,929 2,846
3,632 3,845 4,204 572
3,632 3,845 4,204 572
8,528 9,028 9,870 1,342
Note: The estimated participation numbers indicated above are for each of the sports
listed and do not necessarily translate into expected attendance figures at any Albemarle
recreation facility since many participants utilize other facilities for these activities and
may participate in more than one activity at a time. However, these figures do indicate
the total number of people participating in various sports activities within the county.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 11
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Summary of Sports Participation: The following chart summarizes participation in
various sports and leisure activities utilizing information from the 2001 National Sporting
Goods Association survey.
Table- G- National
Exer. Walk 1 29.2% 45 - 54
Swimming 2 22.9% 7 - 11
Fishing 4 15.5% 7 - 11
Exer/equip 5 17.7% 25 - 34
Bike Riding 7 15.6% 7 - 11
Basketball 9 11.1% 12 - 17
Workout Club* N/A 10.8% 18 - 24
Running/jog 12 9.8% 12- 17
Aerobics 13 9.7% 25 - 34
Baseball 20 5.9% 7 - 11
Soccer 23 5.6% 7 - 11
Softball 24 5.3% 7 - 11
Volleyball 26 4.6% 12- 17
Tennis 28 4.6% 12- 17
Skateboarding 29 3.9% 7 - 11
Football 32 3.4% 12 - 17
Canoeing 36 2.9% 12- 17
Mtn. Biking 37 2.4% 12 - 17
Figure Skating 43 2.2% 7 - 11
Martial Arts 45 2.0% 7 - 11
Racquetball 53 1.2% 18 - 24
Roller Hockey 59 .9% 7 - 11
Ice Hockey 60 .8% 12 - 17
Rank - Popularity of sport based on national survey.
% Part. - Percent of population that would participate in this sport based on average percentage in Table E
above.
Age Group - The age group with the highest level of participation based on national survey.
* If Workout at Club were ranked it would be in the 11th spot.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 12
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Comparison of State Statistics with National Statistics: Utilizing information from
the National Sporting Goods Association, the following charts illustrate thc participation
numbers in selected sports in the state o£Virginia.
Virginia participation numbers in selected sports - As reported by the National
Sporting Goods Association in 2001.
Table- H- Virginia
(in thousands)
Exer. Walking 2088 45-54 35-44
Swimming 1442 7-11 35 -44
Exer. w/Equipment 1217 25-34 35-44
Fishing 970 7-11 35-44
Bike Riding 785 7-11 7-11
Running/Jogging 705 12-17 25-34
Aerobics 698 25 -34 25-34
Basketball 641 12-17 12-17
Workout at Club 607 18-24 25-34
Tennis 567 12-17 25-34
Soccer 477 7-11 7-11
Skateboarding 410 7-11 7-11
Baseball 352 7-11 7-11
Volleyball 334 12-17 12-17
Football 296 12-17 12-17
Softball 260 7-11 25-34
Figure Skating 90 7-11 7-11
Participation - The number of people (/n thousands) in Virginia who participated more than once in the
activity in 2001 and were at least 7 years of age.
Age Group - The age group in which the sport is most popular. The age group where the highest
percentage of the age span participates in the activity. Example: The highest percent of an age group that
participates in exercise walking is 45-54. This is a national statistic.
Largest # - The age group with the highest number of participants. Example: The greatest number of
exercise walkers is in the 3544 age group. Note: This statistic is driven more by the sheer number of
people in the age group than by the popularity of the sport in the age span. This is a national statistic.
When comparing these statistics to the national numbers in Table-G, there are
considerable differences in the ranking of sports. Fishing, basketball, workout at club,
baseball, and softball are less popular and tennis and skateboarding are higher in
popularity in the state of Virginia. There are only state statistics for a limited number of
activities, so statistics are not readily available for all sports listed in Table-F.
Another method to measure sports participation statistics compares the percentage of the
national population from the state with the percentage of national participation in a
variety of sports.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 13
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Virginia sports percentage of participation compared with the population
percentage of the United States -
Virginia's population represents 2.7% of the population of the United States (based on
2000 census statistics).
Table- I- Virginia
Tennis 5.2
Skateboarding 4.3
Soccer 3.4
Football 3.4
Running/Jogging 2.9
Aerobics 2.9
Exer. Walking 2.9
Exer. w/Eqnipment 2.8
Volleyball 2.8
Swimming 2.6
Fishing 2.5
Baseball 2.4
Basketball 2.3
Workout at Club 2.3
Bike Riding 2.0
Softball 2.0
Figure Skating 1.7
Note: Sport participant percentages refer to the total percent of the national population
that participates in a sport that comes fi.om the state of Virginia. It is significant that in
nine of the seventeen sports the percentage of participation is at or above the percentage
of the national population. This is a relatively average rate of participation.
Recreation Activity and Facility Trends: There continues to be very strong growth in
the number of people participating in recreation and leisure activities.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 14
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Below are listed a number of sports activities that could be served in parks and recreation
facilities and the percentage of growth or decline that each has experienced nationally
over the last 10 years (1991-2001).
Table- J- National
Roller Hockey 1.5 2.2 +47%
Soccer 10.0 13.9 +39%
Mtn. Biking 4.6 6.3 +37%
Ice Hockey 1.8 2.2 +22%
Skateboarding 8.0 9.6 +20%
Exercising w/Equip. 39.3 43.0 +10%
Running/Jogging 22.5 24.5 +9%
Basketball 26.2 28.1 +7%
Exercise Walking 69.6 71.2 +2%
Aerobic Exercising 25.9 24.3 -6%
Fishing 47.0 44.4 -6%
Baseball 16.5 14.9 - 10%
Swimming 66.2 54.8 - 17%
Canoeing 8.7 6.8 -22%
Bike Riding 54.0 39.0 -28%
Fig. Skating 7.9 5.3 -33%
Softball 19.6 13.2 -33%
Tennis 16.7 10.9 -35%
Racquetball 6.3 3.4 -46%
Volleyball 22.6 12.0 -47%
1991 Participation - The number of participants per year in the activity (in millions) in the United States.
2001 Participation - The number of participants per year in the activity (in rrdllions) in the United States.
Percent Change - The percent change in the level of participation fi:om 1991 to 2001.
Non-Sports Participation Statistics: It is recognized that most parks and recreation
agencies focus on more than.just sports oriented facilities. Participation in a wide variety
of passive activities and cultural pursuits is common and essential to a well-rounded
center.
While there is not the breadth of information available for participation in these types of
activities as compared to sports endeavors, there are statistics that can be utilized to help
determine the market for cultural arts activities and events. Beginning in 1982 and at
selected intervals there after the National Endowment for the Arts has sponsored the
"Survey of Public Participation in the Arts" to determine the extent to which Americans
participate in the arts. Information extracted from the 1997 survey indicates the
following.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 15
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Personal Participation in the Arts
Individuals who had personally performed or created works in cultural arts activities in
1997 (at least once).
Table- K- National
# of AdUlts
Jazz 2.2% 4.3
Classical Music 1.1% 2.2
Opera 1.8% 3.5
Musical Play 7.7% 15.1
Play 2.7% N/A
Ballet .5% 1.0
Other Dance 12.6% 24.6
Drawing/Painting 15.9% 31.1
Writing 12.1% 23.7
Photography 16.9% 32.6
Pottery 15.1% 29.5
Weaving 27.6% 54.0
% of Adults - the percentage of adults (18 years and older) in the U.S. who participated in the activity at
least once during 1997.
# of Adults - the number of adults (in rrdllions) in the U.S. who participated in the activity at least once
during 1997.
These statistics indicate a strong number of individuals who personally participate in
certain cultural arts activities. The different activity classifications are very broad and
include a variety of specific events.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 16
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Participation in Arts Classes or Lessons
Individuals who participated in arts classes and lessons in 1997 (at least once).
Table- L- National
',-Xcti~ty ~' :~ %6f~Individuals
Music 26.5% 45.9% 34.9% 19.2%
Art 28.2% 74.3% 12.6% 13.0%
Acting 26.8% 77.0% 13.3% 9.7%
Ballet 21.5% 7.0% 89.3% 3.7%
Other Dance 20.0% 23.0% 70.8% 6.3%
Creative Writing 33.6% 88.9% 4.1% 7.0%
Art Appreciation 22.1% 86.8% 7.4% 5.9%
Music Appreciation 22.7% 87.5% 7.6% 4.9%
% of Individuals - the percentage of individuals (of any age) in the U.S. who took lessons in the activity
at least once during 1997.
Less./Sch. - the percentage of those individuals in the U.S. who took lessons in the activity at school
during 1997.
Less./Other - the percentage of those individuals in the U.S. who took lessons in the activity at a location
other than a school during 1997.
Both - the percentage of those individuals in the U.S. who took lessons in the activity at both a school and
other location during 1997.
This table indicates the percentage of people who took lessons in a variety of activities
during 1997 and where these lessons were taken. While the statistics in both tables K and
L indicate strong rates of participation in cultural arts activities, a direct comparison
between these numbers and the sports activities listed earlier is difficult. The sports
statistics are based on individuals who participated more than once in the activity while
the cultural arts figures include even one time participation numbers.
In an attempt to develop a more direct comparison between the rates of participation in
various leisure activities, the NEA survey ranked the following activities.
Ballard*King and Associates w/th Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch.
17
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Rates of Participation in Leisure Activities in 1997:
Table- M- National
Activity Percentages
Watched TV 96.0%
Exercised 75.7%
Arts Activity 66.6%
Home Improvements 65.9%
Went to Movies 65.5%
Gardening 65.4%
Theme Park 57.0%
Played a Sport 44.9%
Camped/Hiked/Canoe 44.3%
Attend Perform. Arts 42.2%
Attend Sport Event 41.2%
Percentages - refers to the percemage of the U.S. population that participated in the activity (at least once)
in 1997.
Chart E- National
100%-
90%-
80%-
70%-
60%-
50%-
40%-
30%-
20%-
10%-
0%
uJ L~
[M Percentage J
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 18
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
In relationship to sports participation and other leisure activities, participation in cultural
arts is very high. More individuals participated in arts activities than went to a movie or
played a sport. In addition, more individuals attended a performing arts activity than
went to a sports event.
Conclusion: There are a variety of sports and cultural arts activities that have a
reasonably high rate of participation within the county. The rate of participation in most
sports activities in Virginia is about average when compared with the rest of the country.
Cultural arts participation is strong and in most cases is equal to or even higher than
sports participation. Within most communities and counties these rates of participation
translate into 20% to 30% of the population utilizing public recreatiOn facilities and
services on somewhat of a regular basis with up to 50% being involved in recreation on
an at least occasional basis.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 19
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Section IH - County of Albemarle Parks and Recreation Assessment
The County of Albemarle has been faced with the challenges of transitioning from a more
rural county to one that is growing very quickly and changing (at least in certain areas) to
a more developed and even urban environment. This situation has been felt by the parks
and recreation department in their efforts to provide services to an ever changing
clientele.
Existing Facilities Listing: The following is a listing of all of the county owned and
partnership developed parks, natural areas, river access, community centers and
greenways.
County Parks
Beaver Creek
Chris Greene
Mint Springs
Totier
Walnut Creek
Whitewood
Simpson
Lane Baseball Field
(219 acres, 104 water)
(239 acres, 53 water)
(520 acres, 8 water)
(209 acres, 69 water)
(525 acres, 45 water)
(25 acres)
(13 acres)
(3 acres)
Undeveloped County Lands
Keene Property
Polo Grounds Property
Preddy Creek Property
S. Fork Rivanna Reservoir
(169 acres)
(27 acres)
(571 acres)
(5 acres)
County/City Parks
Darden Towe (113 acres)
Ivy Creek Natural Area (215 acres)
Piedmont Virginia C.C. Softball Field
Restrictive Covenant Partnerships
Claudius Crozet
Don-ier
(22 acres)
(2 acres)
Community Centers
Greenwood Community Center
Meadows Community Center
Scottsville Community Center
(18 acres)
(1 acre)
(3 acres)
County Maintained River Access Sites
James River -
Howardsville
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch.
20
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Hatton Ferry
Warren
Scottsville
Rivanna River -
Milton
Towe
County Greenway Property
Riverbend
River Run
Crozet Park
(22.7 acres)
(2.8 acres)
(2.2 acres)
Other
Stony Point Ruritan Partnership
Sugar Hollow Reservoir Property
Ragged Mountain Reservoir Property & Trail
Waldorf School
Total County Park Facilities: Below is an accounting of the major parks amenities that
are part of the park resources listed above.
County Amenities
Swimming Beaches
Boat Ramps (lakes)
River Access
Accessible Fishing Pier
Number
3
4
6
Picnic Shelters 12
Tot Lots 9
Swimming Pools 1
Baseball Fields (60') 8
Adult Softball Fields 5
T-Ball Fields
Other
Multipurpose Fields - Full
Multipurpose Fields - Jr.
2 lighted
1
Baseball Fields (90') 3 1 lighted
5
3
Outdoor Basketball Courts
5
Tennis Courts 8
Gynmasiums 1 5,000 sq.ft.
Skating Rink/Dance Floor 1
28.5
Trail Miles
Spray Ground
Dog Park
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 21
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
In addition to the county parks system and those parks that have been developed with
other entities the county schools also provide a significant number of indoor and outdoor
recreation amenities that are available for use by residents of the area.
Summer Park Attendance - The following is the paid attendance at the three parks that
charge for admittance to the beaches during the summer months.
County Park 2000 2001 2002
Chris Greene 15,992 14,583 16,020
Mint Springs 11,025 13,285 8,906
Walnut Creek 14,174 17,020 ~ 18,383
Total 41,191 44,888 43,309
Community Recreation Facilities on County School Grounds: The following school
facilities have amenities that are available for public recreation use and support the
overall neighborhood concept of providing community services.
School Acres 60' Full Jr. Gyms Tot BB Track 90' Tennis
Base Multi Multi Lots Cts Base Courts
Ag-nor-Hurt 19.5 1 I1 0 1 3 2 0 0 0
Albemarle 11.5 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 8
Baker/Butler 52.5 1 I1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0
Broadus 11.4 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0
Wood
Brownsville 12.5 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 0
Burley 15.3 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
Cale 16 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0
Crozet 21.1 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0
Greer 8 1 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 0
Henley 50 0 12 0 i !0 2 0 0 0
Hollymead 25 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 '0 0
Jack Jouett 40 2 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2
M. Lewis 17.6 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 0
Monticello 107 1 3 3 1 0 0 1 1 8
Murray 20 1 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0
Red Hill 11 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0
Scottsville 15 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0
Stone 21 1 1 0 1 3 1 0 ! 0 0
Robinson
Stony Point 11.6 1 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0
Sutherland 16 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2
Walton 50 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 2
W. Albemarle 75 2 4 0 2 0 0 1 I 0 6
Woodbrook 12 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 0
Yancey 7.2 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 0 0
Totals 749.7 20 25 14 26 136 26 5 6 28
Acres - represents the total number of acres in the school complex.
60' Base - number of 60' (base distance) baseball/softball fields.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 22
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Full Multi number of full sized multipurpose fields (for soccer, football, etc.)
Jr. Multi - number of junior sized multipurpose fields (soccer, football, etc.)
Gyms - number of school gyms.
Tot Lots - number of outdoor tot playgrounds.
BB Cts. - number of outdoor basketball courts.
Track- number of outdoor tracks (440 or 400 meter tracks).
90' Base -number of 90' (base distance) baseball fields.
Tennis Courts - number of outdoor tennis courts.
Recreation Program Participation: Below are listed rates of participation and the
growth for the last 3 to 5 years in a number of different program categories.
Field Sport Participation
Sport 1997 2002
Soccer 3,383 3,940
Adult Baseball
Jr. League Baseball
Little League Baseball
238
243
178
315
1,773 1,740
Girl's Softball 225 230
Lacrosse 850
Football 500
Rugby 20
Ultimate Frisbee 0
7,232
Total
900
826
25
100
8,254
All of the field sports participation is by outside organizations using county facilities.
This represents a 14.1% growth in sports field participation in the last five years.
Parks and Recreation Program Participation
Activity 2000 2001 2002
Middle Sch. Sports 447 546 678
Fee Based Programs 1,995 2,001 2,985
Adult Basketball 195 165 180
Summer Playgrounds 679 731 678
Total 3,316 3,443 4,521
Parks and recreation programs have grown by over 36% in the last two years.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 23
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Co-sponsored Parks and Recreation Program Participation
Activity 2000 2001 2002
City Softball N/A 5,164 4,885
City Volleyball N/A 1,939 1,545
Mclntire Skate Park N/A 14,672 8,128
Pepsi Mobile Tennis N/A 545 564
Youth Basketball N/A 1,800 2,268
City Therapeutic Rec. 624 756 818
Total 624 24,876 18,208
Most of the cosponsored programs are with the City of Charlottesville. While there has
been a substantial decline in participation in this area, the vast majority of the loss is
attributable to the Mclntire Skate Park.
Albemarle Parks and Recreation Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis:
The following is a basic strengths, weakness, and opportunities analysis for the
Albemarle County Parks and Recreation.
Strengths -
· Approximately 2,400 acres in the parks system with many of the acres still
undeveloped.
· Have established collaborative agreements with many other providers and
organizations to maximize overall county resources.
o City o£ Charlottesville
o Albemarle County Schools
o Various sports groups
o Piedmont Virginia Community College
o Developers
· Most of the park facilities inventory is well maintained and has a higher overall
level of maintenance than most other providers in the area.
· There are three outstanding beaches in the park system.
· Overall level of customer service appears to be strong.
· In most all areas, use of county parks and participation in recreation services has
seen a substantial increase over the last three to five years.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 24
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Weaknesses -
· An overall lack of identity within the county.
· Need to move the focus of recreation services from youth to a broader cross
section of the population.
· Very low to no fees for facility use by groups or individuals.
· The overall county planning and zoning process makes the addition of new parks
and facilities more difficult.
Established growth areas for the county that impacts the possible location
of future park development.
c) A Dark Sky ordinance that limits (or virtually eliminates) lighted athletic
fields.
o A commitment to the neighborhood concept that may limit the
development of more county wide based facilities as well as place some
restrictions on the effectiveness of even neighborhood based recreation.
· A general lack of trail systems and bike paths especially those that connect with
established parks and other county areas.
· No large regional (within the county) outdoor athletic complex.
· Only small community centers for indoor facilities with no comprehensive
recreation center and no indoor aquatics facilities.
· Very limited recreation programs and services.
· Overall lack of basic park development standards especially on the local level.
· There is a perception that the City of Charlottesville has had to carry the
recreation needs of the county in the past.
· A need to develop a regional approach to providing parks maintenance.
Opportunities -
· Continuing and enhancing partnerships with the City of Charlottesville and the
school system.
· Develop new partnerships with organizations such as:
o Hospitals
o YMCA and other non-profits
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 25
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Sports leagues
· Working with developers to encourage park development guidelines within new
neighborhoods and communities.
The overall parks system will need to continue to expand and can be modified to
fit within basic master planning guidelines. The Albemarle County Community
Facilities Plan 1990-2000 defines basic levels of service, parks standards and the
need for the county to develop indoor recreation facilities.
· An opportunity to coordinate and prioritize park and recreation resources on a
county wide basis with other providers and user groups.
The "Stepping Stones" study (an annual report on the well being of children and
families in the Charlottesville/Albemarle Community) identifies the critical role
that parks and recreation services has in shaping children and families.
· A commitment to the neighborhood concept that will promote school sites as
recreation facilities.
· A continued increase in park usage and recreation program participation provides
a potentially broader base of support for additional facilities and services.
Threats -
· Limited funding to both develop and maintain parks and recreation resources.
· A very large county that has distinct rural and urban areas with different needs
and expectations.
· A wide variety of user groups to serve and often with several organizations in the
same interest area.
· Working within the limiting policies of the-
Dark Sky ordinance
Neighborhood concept
Limited development zones
· A wide variety of organizations providing parks and recreation services with
limited coordination between all groups.
· Strong growth in overall field sport participation (over 14% in the last five
years), has placed continued pressure on the number of fields available.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 26
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
· Changing the girl's high school basketball season to winter will place an
increasing burden on already limited gymnasium space.
· Lack of formalized agreements with user groups of county facilities.
Transportation for youth and seniors remains a key to encouraging further growth
in participation for these age groups.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 27
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Section IV- Other Parks and Recreation Service Providers Assessment
In addition to the County of Albemarle there are also a large number of other providers in
the county that are providing some form of parks and recreation services.
City of Charlottesville - Has an extensive parks and recreation system along more
traditional hnes. The department also offers a full slate of recreation programs and
services.
Parks
McIntire
Greenbrier
Greenleaf
Northeast
Washington
Tonsler
Pen
Rothwell
Meade
Riverview
Fifeville
Belmont
Forest Hills
Rives
Quarry
Jordan
Azalea
Piedmont
Recreation Centers- 9 centers (small neighborhood centers)
Downtown Recreation Center- Armory- recently renOvated
Tonsler Park
Carver Center
Crowe Center
Forest Hills Center
Garrett Square Center
South First Street
Washington Park Center
Westhaven Center
Aquatic Centers- 2 indoor and 2 outdoor, indoor are conventional indoor 6 lane x
25 yard pools
Indoor
Crowe
Smith
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 28
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Outdoor
Washington Park
Onesty Pool
Wading Pools
Forest Hills
Mclntire
Skateboard Park- fenced and supervised area
Golf Courses
Mclntire
Meadowcreek
Other
Ragged Mountain. Reservoir Property
Sugar Hollow Reservoir Property
Albemarle County Schools - Have a large number of education and sports facilities
(indoor and outdoor) that are available for community use as recreation facilities.
Beyond the county's parks this is the primary location for recreation activities in the
county.
YMCA - Does not have a facility but has done several studies for a possible center.
Hope to have full-service center in the next five years. They currently run a number of
programs including the youth basketball and soccer program and a swim team in the
city's pools.
University of Virginia - Has four centers on campus plus a large number of fields.
There is very little utilization by the general public and the university does not market to
non-affiliated individuals or groups. Most all use is by students, faculty and staff but
alumni do not have access to facilities. They do have a strong summer camp program.
Boy's & Girl's Club - Does not currently have a facility of their own (utilizing space
upstairs in the Smith Pool building) but are planning to build a 20,000 sq.ft, center next to
Smith pool. This would free up space for use by the city as a fitness center. They run a
teen center downtown as well as a small facility at the Southwood mobile home park.
One of their primary sports programs is a travel league youth soccer league.
ACAC - The Atlantic Coast Athletic Club is the major private health club in the greater
Charlottesville area. They have two facilities including the main facility north of town
that includes three aerobic studios, track, three pools, gym, large weight/CV area and a
food service/pro-shop area. The other is a much smaller fitness oriented facility
downtown. Due to there presence in the community, the ACAC also provides facilities
for general community use including local swim teams and other groups.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 29
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Churches - A significant number of churches have modest recreation facilities including
gyms and other multi-purpose spaces. Use is often restricted to church activities with
limited use by outside groups or the general public. As an example, the Covenant Church
has a gym.
Soccer Organization Charlottesville-Albemarle (SOCA) - Owns and operates the
South Fork Soccer Park that has five fields plus concessions building.
Senior Center Inc. - This non-profit senior organization operates a large senior center in
the northern Charlottesville area. This facility has three multi-purpose rooms, library,
travel office, gift shop, kitchen, crafts room, dance room, meeting rooms and computer
room. The center does rent out its rooms to other users.
Jefferson Area Board for Aging Senior Centers (JABA) - This senior organization
provides services in a five county area (have four small centers in Albemarle County).
They operate eleven centers and provide adult day care services along with other senior
services.
Martha Jefferson Hospital - The hospital currently provides cardiac and pulmonary
rehabilitation services and has partnered with the ACAC at their facility for many of
these services at their facility. The hospital is building a new outpatient care building at
the new hospital site and will consolidate their rehabilitation services at this location and
leave the ACAC.
Piedmont Community College - Has two softball fields (the county paid for the lighting
of these fields in exchange for second priority of use), a large multipurpose field area,
four tennis courts, a cross country trail, a performing arts center and a small weight room.
The college also works closely with the city and exchanges field use for gym use. They
have no plans to build any new facilities in the coming years but would be interested in
partnering to develop an indoor facility on their campus.
Albemarle Community Education - Albemarle County Public Schools offer a variety
of community education classes at their school facilities. Programs include arts & crafts,
cooking, music, computers, recreation, gardening, safety, personal growth and financial.
Independence Resource Center - This non-profit group for the disabled runs a wheel
chair basketball team but currently does not have a recreation facility of their own. They
have plans to eventually build a facihty.
Monticello - Included on the grounds of Thomas Jefferson's home is the 89 acre Kemper
Park which was designed for recreational uses such as walking, jogging, biking, and bird
watching. Also included in the park is a one mile segment of the Saunders-MontiCello
Trail which is open to pedestrians, cyclists, and those in wheelchairs.
Other -
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 30
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Fairview Pool - A private membership outdoor pool (6 lane 25 yard pool) with a bubble
that was purchased by the Virginia Gators swim team. There is community use and the
Western Albemarle High School swim team practices there.
Stony Point Ruritan - a private park that includes a baseball and soccer field.
Panorama Farms Park- a private mountain biking park.
MACAA Gym - The Monticello Area Community Action Agency operates the old
YMCA and their gym is utilized for activities such as indoor soccer.
Cove Creek Park- a private sports complex with softball and baseball fields.
Conclusion: The relatively large number of other parks and recreation providers in the
county is an indication of the fact that the demand for such services is very large and
diverse requiring a variety of facilities and programs. Even with these other providers,
the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle's parks and recreation
department (along with the school's facilities) are the primary providers of outdoor parks
and recreation facilities. In many cases the other providers are utilizing public facilities
due to a lack of their own. When indoor facilities are analyzed it is apparent that the
county has very limited indoor facilities and the city, despite the seeming high numbers,
actually has limited indoor facilities in size and magnitude. This fact places more
reliance on private and non-profit providers in this area. It is significant that several key
non-profit providers (the YMCA and Boy's & Girl's Club) do not have facilities of their
own and must rely on other providers for locations to provide their programs and
services. In addition the University of Virginia is not a factor as their frae recreation
facilities are virtually not available to the public at all. To maximize overall park and
recreation resources in the county, a significant number of partnering efforts have been
established between providers. This has proven to be a very effective method of
delivering parks and recreation services.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 31
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Section V - Citizen Input Summary
A major aspect of the recreational facilities needs assessment study was an effort to
gather information from the citizens of the County of Albemarle regarding parks and
recreation services and facilities. As a result several input mechanisms were utilized to
ensure that a strong cross section of individuals, groups, county leaders and other
providers were given the opportunity to respond. Over 20 focus group sessions were
held, an open public meeting was conducted, a scientifically valid citizen's survey was
administered with over 750 responses, and a user group survey was sent to 50 groups
with information received from.over 25. The following is a summary of the information
that was gathered from these sources.
Focus Groups - Over the course of several months a wide variety of focus groups were
conducted involving a number of parks and recreation user groups, other providers,
special interest groups, community organizations, and county staff. The following is a
l/st of the focus group sessions that were held.
Charlottesville Albemarle County Convention & Visitors Bureau-Mark Shore
Piedmont Virginia Community College-Steve McNerny
Martha Jefferson Hospital-Ronald Cottrell
Dog Owners
Charlottesville/Albemarle Commission on Children & Families-Saphira Baker
Jefferson Area Board for Aging-Gordon Walker
University of Virginia-Mark Fletcher
Boy's & Girl's Club of Charlottesville-Dave Hilliard
City of Charlottesville Recreation & Leisure Services-Johnny Ellen
Senior Center Inc.-Peter Thompson
Independence Resource Center-Tom Vandever
Atlantic Coast Athletic Club-Phil Wendel
Soccer Organization Charlottesville-Albemarle (SOCA)-Bill Mueller
Piedmont Family YMCA-Bob Vanderspegiel
Sports Groups
Soccer- 3 organizations
Adult Baseball- 2 organizations
Jr. Baseball- 2 organizations
Little League Baseball- 7 organizations
Lacrosse- 4 organizations
Youth Football- 1 organization
Girl's Softball- 2 organizations
Adult Rugby- 1 organization
Field Hockey- 1 organization
Charlottesville Youth Aquatics Club
Charlottesville STAR Swim Team, Inc.
Virginia Gators Swim Team
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 32
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Albemarle County Staff-Mark Graham, David Benish, John Miller, Kathy
Ralston, Tex Weaver
Albemarle County Executive Staff-Bob Tucker, Roxanne White, Tom Foley
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors-Dennis Rooker, Sally Thomas
Albemarle County Parks & Recreation Staff- Pat Mullaney, Bob Crickenberger
Albemarle County Schools Staff-A1 Reaser
Albemarle County Schools Athletic Directors
The general findings of these focus group sessions include:
· A general appreciation for what the county does in providing recreation facilities
and services. Facility maintenance and operations are high quality overall.
· The demand for recreation facilities and services in the county is high. There is a
wide diversity of needs in many areas.
· There are many unmet recreation needs and the overall lack of facilities limits
participation by many organizations.
There is recognition that the county is just one provider among many in the area
but they are one of the primary providers. Despite the presence of other
recreation facilities there are needs for additional county facilities.
· The county's parks system is known for its large regional parks, natural areas and
its focus on youth sports.
Continued partnering with other agencies and providers is expected and strongly
encouraged to maximize resources. Many organizations expressed an interest in
not only continuing partnerships but expanding or starting new parmership
opportunities.
· There is an expectation that more comprehensive long range planning with other
providers will take place to maximize public dollars.
The focus of county recreation services needs to move beyond youth sports and
emphasize recreation for everyone including the disabled community, seniors, at
risk youth and the lower income.
· Specific areas of concern (expressed most often by county staff) included:
o The impact of the neighborhood concept on the future delivery of parks
and recreation services and facilities.
o The presence of specific development zones might limit or force new
facility development to certain areas.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 33
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
How significant park and recreation developments and improvements will
be funded.
· With the size of the county, transportation needs to bring youth and seniors to
facilities was mentioned as a major concern.
· Specific facility needs included:
o The need for more sports fields and especially a large sports complex with
multiple fields to support tournaments and other needs.
The development of a comprehensive trail system to connect various areas
of the county to recreation facilities and programs.
The desire for a large indoor recreation center that would include a
significant aquatics facility.
The need for additional aquatics and gym areas.
Places for non-organized and scheduled recreation.
Light existing fields to increase their utilization.
The county should work with the Charlottesville Albemarle County Convention
and Visitors Bureau to promote recreation special events and activities to those
outside the county.
Public Meeting - An open public meeting was held on Wednesday, April 16th to gather
opinions from the community regarding existing Albemarle parks and recreation facilities
and programs as well as future needs and levels of service. Despite a relatively small
turnout (12) there were a number of e-mails and letters that were sent by individuals that
could not attend the meeting. Key findings from the meeting were:
· Additional partnering with other agencies and providers is necessary to expand
the number of park and recreation facilities.
· Transportation to recreation facilities in a large county is a primary concern.
· A desire to see improved maintenance of existing facilities including the lighting
of existing fields.
· A method to fund additional park and recreation facilities is a maj or stumbling
block to the growth of recreational opportunities in the county.
· The need to work with developers to develop new park facilities.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 34
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
· Needed facilities include:
Mountain biking trails.
Baseball and soccer fields
Gyms
Trails
Citizens Survey - Leisure Vision conducted a Commtmity Attitude and Interest Survey
during June and July of 2003 to help establish priorities for the future development of
parks and recreation facilities, programs and services within the County of Albemarle.
The survey was designed to obtain statistically valid results from households throughout
the county. The survey was administered by a combination of mail and phone.
Leisure Vision worked extensively with Albemarle County Parks and Recreation
Department officials in the development of the survey questionnaire. This work allowed
the survey to be tailored to issues of strategic importance to effectively plan the future
system.
The goal was to obtain at least 600 completed surveys, including at leaSt 100 surveys in
each of the six planning regions. This goal was far exceeded, with 762 surveys being
completed, and over 100 being completed in each of the six planning regions. The results
of the random sample of 762 households have a 95% level of confidence with a precision
of at least +/-3.6%.
The following pages summarize major survey findings:
Visitation of Albemarle County Patios During the Past Year
From a list of 4 Albemarle County parks, respondents were asked to indicate all of the
ones that they and members of their household have visited during the past year. The
following summarizes key findings:
Each of the four Albemarle County parks had over 20% of respondent
households indicate they have visited them during the past year, including:
Walnut Creek (29%); Towe Park (29%); Chris Greene Park (24%); and Mint Springs
Park (22%). It should also be noted that two-thirds (66%) of respondents households
have visited at least one of the four parks.
Nearly three-fourths (72%) of respondents indicated they have visited a park in
Albemarle County during the past year. This includes 66% of respondents who
have visited either Chris Greene, Mint Springs, Walnut Creek, or Towe Park, and 6%
who have not visited one of those four parks, but have visited other parks in
Albemarle County. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of respondents have not visited any
parks in Albemarle County during the past year.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 35
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Thirty-four percent (34%) of respondent households indicated they have visited
Albemarle County parks other than Chris Greene, Mint Springs, Walnut Creek,
or Towe Park during the past year, and the other 66% indicated they have not
visited any other Albemarle County parks.
Penn Park is the park visited by the highest number of respondent households
(after the four parks mentioned above). Other parks visited by a high number of
respondent households include McIntire and Ivy Creek.
Physical Condition of Albemarle County Parks
Respondent households who have visited Albemarle County Parks and Recreation
Department parks during the past year were asked how they would rate the physical
condition of all the parks they had visited. The following summarizes key findings:
Thirty percent (30%) of respondent households rated the physical condition of
all the Albemarle County parks they have visited as excellent, and an additional
59% rated them as good. In addition, 10% rated the physical condition of the parks as
fair and only 1% rated them as poor.
Improvements to Albemarle County Parks
From a list of 15 possible improvements to Albemarle County parks, respondents were
asked to indicate the three improvements they would most like to have made to the park
they visit most often. Respondents who do not currently use Albemarle County parks
were asked to indicate the three improvements that would encourage them to use the
parks. The following summarizes key findings:
Restrooms (37%) had the highest percentage of respondents rate it as one of the
three improvements they would most like to have made. Other improvements that
a high percentage of respondents rated as one of the three they would like to have
made include: walking/biking trails (34%); shade trees (21%); drinking fountains
(18%); and picnic shelters (17%).
Recreational Facilities that Respondent Households Have a Need for
From a list of 27 existing recreational facilities, respondents were asked to indicate
which ones they and members of their household have a need for. The following
summarizes key findings:
· Four of the 27 recreational facilities had over half of respondent households
indicate they have a need for the facility. The facilities that the highest percentage
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 36
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
of respondent households indicated they have a need for include: nature
centers/natural areas (63%); paved walking/biking trails (58%); small community
parks (56%); and picnic shelters/areas (54%).
Q6. Percenta_ e of Respondent Households that Have
a Need for Various Recreational Facilities
by percentage of respondents (multiple choices could be made)
Nature centers/natural areas, nature trails
Paved w alking/biking trails
Small corrrnunity parks
Picnic shelters/areas
Improved access to rivers & lakes
Indoor sw ~rm'ing pools
Beach area for swimming
Indoor exercise & fitness facilities
Large regional parks
Outdoor sw irrrdng pools/water parks
Playgrounds
Indoor cultural arts facilities
Tennis courts
Off-leash dog parks
Indoor gyrmas~ums
Outdoor basketball/multi-use courts
Mountain biking trails
Soccer fields
Youth baseball field w/60 ft. bases
Outdoor volleyball courts
Full-size baseball fields w/90 ft. bases
Skateboarding, roller/in-line hockey parks
Adult softball fields
Football fields
Lacrosse fields
Ultimate frlsbee
Youth softball fields
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (July, 2003)
.63%
I 58%
56%
54%
I I ~ -43%1
I I 43%!
42%1
~.1% i
41%: :
I 33%i :
131%:
26%
I 26% : :
~ 24% I :
I I . 23o/~
' I "
23%1 ,, ,,
/o 22%'' i ',
II 12%', ,, ¢ ~
II 12%:: ' :
~l 11% i :
I110% : t :
I 9% "
I i9% : : : : :
~ 9% ,
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
How }Fell Existing Facilities Meet Respondent Household Needs
From the list of 27 existing recreational facilities, respondents were asked to indicate
how well each facility meets the needs of their household. The following summarizes key
fmdings:
Ten of the 27 recreational facilities had at least 40% of respondents indicate that
the facility completely meets the needs of their household. The facilities that had
the highest percentage of respondents indicate that the facility completely meets their
needs includes: large regional parks (47%); beach area for swimming (46%); soccer
fields (46%); full size baseball fields with 90 ft. bases (44%); small community parks
(43%); picnic shelters/areas (42%); youth baseball fields with 60 ft. bases (42%);
adult softball fields (42%); playgrounds (41%); and youth softball fields (40%). It
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 37
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
should also be noted that for all 27 types of facilities, less than 50% of respondent
households indicate that their needs are being completely met.
Facilities Most Important to Respondents Households
From the list of 27 existing recreational facilities, respondents were asked to select the
four that are most important to them and members of their household. The following
summarizes key findings:
Nature centers/natural areas, nature trails (32%) had the highest percentage of
respondents rate it as one of the four most important facilities to their
household. There are three other facilities that at least 20% of respondents rated as
one of the four most important, including: paved walking/biking trails (29%); small
community parks (20%); and indoor swimming pools (20%). It should also be noted
that nature centers/natural areas, nature trailS had the highest percentage of
respondents rate it as the number one most important facility.
Q7. Recreational Facilities that Are Most
Important to Respondent Households
by percentage of respondents (four choices could be made)
Nature centers/natural areas, nature trails
Paved w alking/biking trails
Small community parks
Indoor sw irrrring pools
Picnic shelters/areas
Indoor exercise & fitness facilities
Irrproved access to rivers & lakes
Large regional parks
Outdoor sw irrrring pools/w ater parks
Beach area for sw imrring
Raygrounds
Off-leash dog parks
Indoor cultural arts facilities
Tennis courts
Soccer fields
IVlountain biking trails
Outdoor basketball/rruiti-use courts
Indoor gyrmamums
Youth baseball field wi60 ft. bases
Full-size baseball fields wi90 ft. bases
Skateboarding, rolledin-line hockey parks
Adult softball fields
Lacrosse fields
Outdoor volleyball courts
Football fields
Youth softball fields
Ultimate frisbee
: .' ;..~ 29%
.'::' :'....':: 20%
· ',.. ·: ,. 20%
· ..:. ::. 18%
· . ........... 17.%
· :.. -~ 17%
..... :'.. , 16%
· ". ': 15%
~ 13%
~ 7%i
~ 6%
~ 6%
ll~ 5%
~ 4%
~ 4%
l~ 3%
~]l 3%
[] 2%
~2%
2%
I]1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Ilrvlost Important 12nd Most Important rn3rd Most Important B4th Mast Important I
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC h~stitute (July, 2003)
Participation in Programs Offered by Albemarle County Parks & Rec. Dept.
Respondents were asked if they or other members of their household have participated in
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 38
County of Albemarle Commtmity Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
any programs offered by the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department during
the past 12 months. The following summarizes key findings:
Twenty percent (20%) of respondent households have participated in programs
offered by the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department during the
past 12 months, and the other 80% of respondent households have not participated in
programs.
Quality of Albemarle County's Recreation Programs
Respondent households that have participated in programs offered by the Albemarle
County Parks and Recreation Department during the past year were asked to rate the
quality of the programs they have participated in. The following summarizes key
findings:
One-third (33%) of respondent households rated the quality of programs that
they have participated in as excellent, and an additional 62% rated them as good.
In addition, 3% rated the programs as fair and only 1% rated them as poor. The
remaining 1% indicated "don't know".
Importance of Functions Performed by the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation
Department
From a list of 9 functions performed by the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation
Department, respondents were asked to rate the importance of each one. The following
sununarizes key findings:
Four of the nine functions had at least two-thirds of respondents rate them as
being very important. The functions that received the highest very important ratings
are: operating parks and facilities that are clean/well maintained (87%); preserve the
environment and provide open space (78%); provide places for outdoor sports
programs (67%); and provide natural areas for wildlife and plants (66%). It should
also be noted that all 9 functions had over 75% of respondents rate them as being
either very important or somewhat important.
Most Important Functions for Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department to
Provide
From the list of 9 functions performed by the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation
Department, respondents were asked to select the top four most important functions for
them to provide. The following summarizes key findings:
· Operating parks and facilities that are clean/well maintained (66%) had the
highest percentage of respondents select it as one of the four most important
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 39
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
functions for the Albemarle County Parks & Recreation Department to provide.
There arc four other functions that over one-third of respondents selected as one of
the four most important to provide, including: preserve the environment & provide
open space (53%); provide natural areas for wildlife & plants (43%); provide places
for outdoor sports programs (42%); and provide small community parks close to
home (38%). It should also be noted that operating parks and facilities that are
clean/well maintained had the highest percentage of respondents select it as the
number one most important function to provide.
Q10. Functions that Are Most Important for the
Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Dept. to ProVide
by percentage of respondents (four choices could be made)
Operate parks & fac that are clean/w ell-maintained
Preserve the environment & provide open space
Provide natural areas for w ildlife & plants
Provide places for outdoor sports programs
Provide small corrrnunity parks close to home
Provide regional park fac with swim beaches, etc.
Provide places for indoor rec, sports & fitness
Provide trails/linear parks that connect neighborh
Provide active outdoor recreation opportunities
O%
~29%
28%
25%
21o£[
10% 20% 30%
53%
43o/c~
42%
38%
40% 50% 60% 70%
LIMost Irq3ortant l~2nd Most Important D3rd Most Important m4th Most Important I
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (July, 2003)
Organizations Albemarle County ShouM Partner With
From a list of 5 organizations, respondents were asked to select the two organizations
they feel it is most important for the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department
to parmer with to provide parks and recreation facilities and programs. The following
summarizes key findings:
The City of Charlottesville (63%) is the organization the highest percentage of
respondents would like to see Albemarle County partner with. In addition, 41%
of respondents indicated they would like to see Albemarle County partner with local
youth and adult sports programs.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 40
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Frequency. of Use of Potential Programming Spaces
From a list of 16 potential indoor recreation, aquatic, and fitness programming spaces,
respondents were asked to indicate how often they and members of their household
would use each one. The following summarizes key findings:
Forty-five percent (45%) of respondent households indicated they would use a
weight room/cardiovascular equipment area at least once a month. There are
four other programming spaces that over one-third of respondent households would
use at least once a month, including: indoor-warm water family oriented swimming
center (44%); indoor rtmning/walking track (43%); aerobics/fitness space (40%); and
lap lanes for exercise swimming (39%). It should also be noted that weight
room/cardiovascular equipment area (20%) had the highest percentage of respondent
households indicate they would use it several times per week.
Programming Spaces that Respondents Would Be Most Willing to Support with Tax
Dollars
From the list of 16 potential indoor recreation, aquatic, and fitness programming spaces,
respondents were asked to select the top three they would be most willing to support with
their tax dollars. The following summarizes key findings:
An indoor warm water family oriented swimming center (34%) had the highest
percentage of respondents select it as one of the four programming spaces they
would be most willing to support with tax dollars. There are three other
programming spaces that over 20% of respondents selected as one of the top three
they would support with tax dollars, including: indoor running/walking track (28%);
weight room/cardiovascular equipment area (25%); and aerobics/fitness space (22%).
It should also be noted that an indoor warm water family oriented swimming center
had by a wide margin the highest percentage of respondents select it as the number
one programming space they would be most willing to support with tax dollars.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 41
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Q13. Programming Spaces Respondent Households Would
Be Most Willing to Support With Tax Dollars
by percentage of respondents (three choices could be made)
Indoor w armw ater family oriented swimming ctr.
Indoor runmr~/w alking track
Weight room/cardiovascular equipment area
Aerobics/fitness space
Lap lanes for exercise sw irrmng
Gyrmasiums for basketball, volleyball, etc
Activity areas for teens
Activity areas for Older Adults
Performing arts area
Gathering spaces
Early childhood/pre-school area
Multipurpose space for classes
Arts & crafts moms
Dance room
Competitive sw ircrring pool ama
IVleeting rooms
0%
' ..'.... ' 25%
17%
13%
12%
11%
6%
5%
5%
4%
10% 20% 30% 40%
I mMost Willing to Support m2nd Most Willing to Support r~3rd Most Willing to Support I
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (July, 2003)
Emphasis on Developing Small Community Parks vs. Large Regional Parks
From the list of 4 statements, respondents were asked to indicate which one best
describes the emphasis that Albemarle County Parks and Recreation should place on the
development of small community parks as compared to large regional parks. The
following summarizes key findings:
Nearly half (47%) of respondents indicated that equal emphasis should be
placed on developing small community parks and large regional parks. In
addition, 22% of respondents indicated that more emphasis should be placed on
developing small commtmity parks, and 17% would place more emphasis on
developing large regional parks. It should also be noted that 11% of respondents
indicated that no new community or regional parks are needed.
Use of Organizations for Parks and Recreation Programs and Facilities
From a list of 10 options, respondent households were asked to select all of the
organizations they use within Albemarle County for parks and recreation programs and
facilities. The following summarizes key f'mdings:
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 42
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
The Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department (44%) is the
organization used by the highest percentage of respondent households. There are
three other organizations that over 30% of respondent households indicated they use,
including: private clubs (36%); churches (34%); and the City of Charlottesville
(32%).
Organizations that Respondents Use the Most for Parks and Recreation Programs and
Facilities
From the list of 10 options, respondent households were asked to select the two
organizations whose parks and recreation programs and facilities they use the most. The
following summarizes key findings:
Private clubs (27%) had the highest percentage of respondents select it as one of
the two organizations they use the most. Other organizations that a high percentage
of respondents indicated as one of the two they use the most include: Albemarle
County Parks and Recreation Department (25%); City of Charlottesville (18%); and
churches (16%).
Support for Actions to Improve the Parks and Recreation System
From a list of 13 actions that the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department
could take to improve the parks and recreation system, respondents were asked to
indicate their level of support for each one. The following summarizes key findings:
Two of the 13 actions had over half of respondents indicate being very
supportive of them. The actions that received the highest very supportive ratings are:
preserve/conserve existing parks, playgrounds, etc (72%) and purchase land to
preserve open space, natural areas, greenways (52%). It should also be noted that 9 of
the 13 actions had over 60% of respondents indicate being either very supportive or
somewhat supportive of them.
Actions that Are Most Important to Respondent Households
From the list of 13 actions that the Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department
could take to improve the parks and recreation system, respondent households were asked
to select the top four that are most important to them. The following summarizes key
findings:
Preserve/conserve existing parks, playgrounds, etc. (53%) had the highest
percentage of respondent households select it as one of the four most important
actions for Albemarle County to take. There are four other actions that over 30%
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 43
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
of respondent households selected as one of the four most important, including:
purchase land to preserve open space, natural areas, greenways (39%); develop new
walking/biking trails and greenways (37%); develop small community parks close to
home (33%); and develop new indoor recreation facilities (32%). It should also be
noted that purchase land to preserve open space, natural areas, greenways had the
highest percentage of respondents select it as the number one most important action.
Q18. Most Important Actions for the Albemarle County
Parks and Recreation Department to Take
by percentage of respondents (four choices could be made)
Preserve/conserve existing parks, playgrounds, etc
Purchase land to preserve open space, natural area
Develop new walking/biking trails and greenways
Develop small corrrTunity parks close to horns
Develop new indoor recreation facilities
Upgrade existing youth & adult athletic fields
Develop new outdoor pools
Purchase land for developing active recreation use
Purchase land to develop athletic fields & rec fac
Develop large regional parks throughout the County
Develop new dog parks
Develop new athletic fields
Develop new skate parks
Other
0%
.~ ' ~ 53%
~ 39%
~ 37%
33%
32%
22%
2O%
~19%
15%
14%
12%
g77/o
~_~ 3 °/o i
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
· llVbst Important ~2nd Most Important ~3rd Most Irrportant ~4th Most Important
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (July, 2003)
Costs for Maintaining Youth and Adult Sports Fields
Respondents were asked what percentage of the cost to maintain youth and adult sports
fields should be paid through user fees, and what percentage through taxes. The
following summarizes key findings:
Twenty-nine percent (29%) of respondents indicated that the costs to maintain
youth sports fields should be split evenly between user fees (50%) and taxes
(50%). In addition, 11% indicated that 100% of the costs for youth sports fields
should be paid through user fees, and 21% indicated that 100% should be paid
through taxes.
· One-third (33%) of respondents indicated that the costs to maintain adult sports
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure VisiOn and Hughes Group Arch. 44
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
fields should be split evenly between user fees (50%) and taxes (50%). In
addition, 16% indicated that 100% of the costs for adult fields should be paid through
user fees, and 12% indicated that 100% should be paid through taxes.
Allocation of $100 Among Various Parks and Recreation Categories
Respondents were asked how they would allocate $100 among various parks and
recreation categories. The following summarizes key findings:
Respondents indicated they would allocate $38 out of every $100 to
improvements/ maintenance of existing parks, sports, recreation facilities, etc.
The remaining $62 was allocated as follows: development of new indoor recreation
facilities ($21); acquisition of new parkland and open space ($20); and development
of new outdoor recreation and parks facilities ($18). The remaining $3 was allocated
to "other".
Q20. Allocation of $100 to Various
Recreation and Parks Facilities
by percentage of respondents
Improvements/maintenance
of existing parks, sports,
recreation facilities, etc.
$38
Acquisition of
;20 new parkland
and open space
Development of new
outdoor recreation $18
and parks facilities
Other
'$21 Development of new
indoor recreation facilities
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Instifute (July, 2003)
Amount Respondents Would Pay in Increased Property Taxes to Fund the Most
Important Types of Parks, Trails, & Facilities
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 45
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
From a list of 5 options, respondents were asked to indicate the maximum amount they
would be willing to pay in increased property taxes to fired the types of parks, trails,
sports and recreation facilities most important to them and their household. The
following summarizes key findings:
Thirty-nine percent (39%) of respondents indicated they would pay at least $10
per month in increased property taxes to fund the most important types of
parks, trails, sports and recreation facilities. This group includes 21% who would
pay $10-$14, 11% who would pay $20 or more, and 7% who would pay $15-$19. In
addition, 21% would pay $5-$9 and 16% would pay $1-$4. It should also be noted
that 20% would not pay an increase in taxes, and the remaining 4% did not provide an
answer.
Q21. Maximum Amount Respondents Would be Willing to
Pay Per Month in Increased Property Taxes to Fund the Most
Important Types of Parks, Trails, Sports & Recreation Facilities
by percentage of respondents
$10-$14
21%
$15 - $19
7%
$5 - $9
21%
$20 or more
11%
Don't Know
4%
$1-$,~
16%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (July, 2003)
Nothing
2O%
Voting on Increasing Taxes to Fund the Most Important Types of Parks, Trails and
Facilities
Respondents were asked how they would vote if an election were held to fund the types
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 46
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
of parks, trails, sports and recreation facilities most important to them and their
household. The following summarizes key findings:
Nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents indicated they would either vote in
favor (41%) of might vote in favor (23%) if an election were held to fund the
most important types of parks, trails, sports and recreation facilities. In addition,
15% of respondents indicated they would vote against, and 20% indicated they were
not sure how they would vote.
0.22. How Respondents Would Vote on Increased Taxes to Fund
the Types of Parks, Trails, Sports and Recreation Facilities
Most Important to Them and Their Households
by percentage of respondents
Vote in Favor
41%
Might Vote in Favor
23%
Source: Leisure Vision/ETC Institute (July, 2003)
Not Sure
20%
Don't Know
1%
Vote Against
15%
Reasons Respondents Are Not Sure or Would Vote Against a Tax Increase
From a list of three reasons, respondents who indicated they are not sure or would vote
against a tax increase to fund the types of parks, trails, sports and recreation facilities
most important to them and their household were asked to indicate the major reason for
their response. The following summarizes key findings:
Forty-four percent (44%) of respondents indicated "I need more information" as
the major reason for their response. In addition, 39% indicated "I am opposed to
any tax increase to fund County parks and recreation projects", and 2% indicated "I
do not think there is a need for any improvements". Thirteen percent (13%)
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 47
County of Albemarle Commtmity Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
indicated "other" and the remaining 2% did not provide an answer.
In addition to analyzing the overall survey findings it is beneficial to look at specific
cross sections of responses. This helps with understanding where some differences or
similarities may exist.
Charlottesville and the County: When the responses are reviewed and compared between
the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle some of basic findings are.
· City residents actually have a slightly higher rate of use of county parks than do
county residents.
· City residents are strong users of county parks but county residents use county
facilities at a higher rate than they do city parks.
· Regarding basic recreation needs, improvements and desired facilities, there are
similar responses between the city and county.
· The rate of participation in county recreation programs is much higher in the
county than the city.
· There is generally a higher rate of support for voting yes for a tax increase in the
city than the county.
Urban and Rural Areas of the County: Breaking down the responses between the urban
and rural areas of the county some of basic findings are.
· Urban residents have a slightly higher rate of use of county parks than do rural
residents.
· Regarding basic recreation needs, improvements and desired facilities, there are
similar responses between the urban and rural areas.
· The rate of participation in county recreation programs is higher in the rural
areas than the urban.
· The rural areas of the county are a little more willing to pay a higher pay
property tax amount for parks improvements than the urban area.
· There is generally a slightly higher rate of support for a tax increase in the urban
area than the rural.
Seniors: If the responses from seniors are broken out from other age groups the basic
findings are.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 48
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
· There is a lower rate of general use of existing parks and recreation facilities and
an anticipated lower rate of use for any new facilities.
Regarding basic recreation needs, improvements and desired facilities, there are
similar responses between seniors and other age groups but the extent of the
demand is less with seniors and there is more interest in passive use areas and
senior focused elements than other ages indicated.
There was much less support for any type of tax increase to build additional
facilities and a smaller percentage (but still above 50%) said they would vote in
favor of or might vote in favor of a tax increase.
Other: Some other characteristics by different demographic groups include.
Age is an important determiner of results. Generally the younger the adult age the
more likely there is for support for additional park and recreation services,
facilities and a willingness to support a tax increase to fund these needs.
Income has a similar impact with generally stronger support for additional parks
and recreation facilities and programs and a greater level of support for a tax
increase to fund such services. However once the $100,000 income level is
reached the degree of support begins to drop.
Household size is another indicator with similar results as age and income that
indicates that as household size increases so does support for recreation programs
and facilities.
User Group Survey With the assistance of the County of Albemarle's staff, a special
user group survey was sent to fifty organizations that are current users or county parks
and recreation facilities to gain specific insight into their organization, use patterns of
facilities and future needs. From this twenty eight surveys were returned (the vast
majority from youth and adult sports groups) and the following were the basic findings:
Most organizations use facilities seasonally on a non-exclusive basis. The months
with the greatest use are March through June and August through October. Each
of the days of the week receives reasonably consistent use.
Over 80% of the organizations indicated that the facilities they utilize are in
reasonably good condition, are located in an area that is accessible, are available
on the dates and times they desire, are of sufficient size, and are safe. However
only 60% indicated that the number of facilities met their needs and less than 80%
that facilities were maintained at a level to meet their needs.
· Many groups wanted to see improved maintenance of the facilities that they use
as well as minor improvements to the facilities.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 49
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
· Approximately 56% of the organizations reported only having an oral agreement
for facility usage.
Organizations expressed a willingness (85%) to at least explore the sharing of
costs to update facilities and over 90% were willing to look at the possibility of
implementing a player or user fee.
Overall Citizen Input Findings - When all of the citizen input mechanisms are
reviewed as a whole the following are some of the consistent findings.
· The county's parks and recreation department is well thought of by its residents
and they believe that current facilities and programs are well run and maintained.
There is a general lack of knowledge of what facilities and services the county has
and also confusion between what is city owned and county owned. This is due
partly to the current parmerships that are in place between, the county and other
providers (including the city).
· The demand for recreation facilities and services in the county is high.
· There are unmet recreation needs in many areas but especially for indoor spaces.
The county's parks system is known for its large regional parks, natural areas,
beaches and its focus on youth sports. It is not well known for recreation
programming.
The focus of county parks and recreation services needs to move beyond youth
sports and emphasize not only active uses but more passive and self directed
activities. Cultural arts activities cannot be ignored.
Parmering with other agencies and providers is expected and will need to continue
if overall county parks and recreation needs are to be met. Partnerships should be
pursued or strengthened with the City of Charlottesville, sports organizations, the
University of Virginia and local developers.
· The county's first priority must be to maintain and update the facilities that they
already have.
· Specific facility needs include:
Acquisition of open space and natural areas.
The development of a comprehensive trail and greenway system to
connect various areas of the county to recreation facilities and programs.
Also the development of trail systems within the parks themselves.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 50
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
o Continued development of community parks.
o Indoor recreation facilities that might include sports, fitness and aquatics
as well as some cultural arts amenities.
The development of a sports complex with multiple fields to support
tournaments and other needs.
· Funding of planned park and recreation improvements with a possible property
tax increase has some general support but it must be approached carefully.
· With the size of the county, transportation needs to bring youth and seniors to
facilities is an issue that will need to be considered.
· User groups are willing to explore the sharing of costs to improve facilities and
are willing to look at implementing user or player fees.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 51
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Section VI - Partnership Analysis
Currently the County of Albemarle Parks and Recreation Department is involved with a
number of partnerships with other organizations and recreation service prov/ders. It is
clear that these types of partnerships will need to continue and indeed expand if the
overall park and recreation needs of the county are to be met.
Existing Partnerships Include:
1. Albemarle County Schools Schools in Albemarle County also double as public
parks. Elementary schools function as community parks, and middle and high schools
are considered as district parks. A significant number of Albemarle Parks and
Recreation classes and programs are run at school sites and the department is able to use
these facilities free of charge. When a new school site is purchased in the county,
recreation needs are taken into account when buying property. In the past when new
schools have been built the school board would purchase the property build the school
and grade the site. The parks, and recreation department would then fund the outdoor
recreation facilities. All new elementary schools built in Albemarle County within the
last 10 years or so have had wooden floors and full size (8,000 sq. foot) gyms because of
their use for community recreation. The Parks and Recreation Department maintains
some select athletic facilities on the school grounds where there is joint
school/community use and the site has been selected as a higher priority for an increased
maintenance program. It is the department's long range goal to eventually have all the
school fields on such a program. In addition parks and recreation has been undertaking
capital improvements on school grounds for community recreation the past 25 years.
2. City of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation The city and county parks and
recreation departments have partnered in a number of different ways. There are two
city/county parks which are administered by the county and funded by both entities. One
is the 215-acre Ivy Creek Natural Area, which includes an additional partnership with the
non-profit Ivy Creek Foundation. The foundation builds and maintains the trails and
provides nature programming at the site. The other park is Darden Towe Memorial Park,
which is the largest and most heavily utilized athletic field complex in both the city and
county. This parkland was purchased and largely built on a 50/50 share. Operation costs
are based on actual usage, which runs approximately 62% for the county and 38% for the
city. The park is administered by the county staff with consultation with city staff when
necessary and oversight on major issues by a committee consisting of 2 city councilors
and 2 board of supervisors members. The city has historically run adult softball and
volleyball leagues with the county providing field and gym space for these programs. As
a result no non-resident fee is charged to county residents. The county runs adult
basketball leagues and does not charge non-resident fees to city residents. Other
cooperative programs include the therapeutic recreation program, which is run by the city
with the county paying its share of direct expenses based usage. The skateboard park is
administered by the city with the county paying a percentage of the original construction
and a share of operational costs based on usage by county residents. The city and county
also run several special events together like the Easter Egg Hunt and the Hershey Track
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 52
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
and Field meet. The county provides space for a variety of city programs at county
facilities free of charge. An example would be the City Fishing Rodeo, which is held at
Mint Springs Park. Recently the city and county as well as Mclntire Little League
funded the lighting and the reconstruction of two little league fields in the city's Mclntire
Park.
3. Piedmont Virginia Community College- Two softball fields at PVCC are used by the
city to run their adult softball program with the city providing the field maintenance. The
county recently paid to install new lights but a cost share between the city and county
originally lighted the fields.
4. YMCA - Albemarle County Parks and Recreation and the YMCA cosponsor the youth
basketball program with the county providing the gym space and $4,200 per year to the Y
for administering the program.
5. SOCA - The Soccer Organization of Charlottesville Albemarle is a non-profit group,
which runs most of the organized soccer programs in the area. The county provides
substantial field space and does not compete by running its own program. SOCA has
contributed funding on a joint city/county/SOCA program to upgrade the fields at Towe
Park. SOCA recently built its own 5-field complex, which the county contributed
financially to. The county currently has $300,000 programmed in its FY 03-04 CIP
budget to partner with SOCA for additional such field projects.
6. Lane League - The Lane League provides all the field maintenance at Lane Field
which is a county owned field that is located in the middle of the City of Charlottesville.
The Lane League operates a junior and senior league baseball program.
7. Various Little Leagues and Youth Sports Programs The majority of youth sports
are mn by parent mn volunteer organizations. The county provides the field space and
shares maintenance responsibilities for these fields depending on the ability and desire of
the various organizations.
8. Claudius Crozet Park- One of the county's most successful partnerships is with the
private non-profit Crozet Park Board. This is a 20+ acre park in the middle of Crozet
owned by the Crozet Park Board. Crozet Park has provided an outdoor swimming pool
for the residents of Crozet and surrounding area for over 50 years. On two occasions in
the past 20 years the park has received capital funding from the county and the parks and
recreation department also provides some basic maintenance assistance.
9. Town of Scottsville - The county is joined in a partnership with the Town of
Scottsville. The county owns the Scottsville Community Center, which consists of the
gynmasium wing and grounds of the old Scottsville High School. The town owns the
adjacent property, which was minimally developed and known as Dorrier Park. The
county entered into a restrictive covenant agreement with the town of Scottsville that said
the county would develop and maintain both properties as one park with the deed
restriction that Dorrier Park will always remain available for public recreation.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 53
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
10. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries - The county provides routine
maintenance at the Scottsville Boat Launch on the James River owned by VDGIF. The
county leases VDGIF property and private property at Howardsville on the James River
and operates a river access there where VDG~ failed. VDGIF and the County have a
fish management agreement whereby VDGIF biologists sample and regulate the fisheries
at county parks.
11. Jefferson Area Board for Aging The county has agreements with JABA to provide
space for senior services at the Scottsville and the Meadows Community Center.
Note: This assessment of current partnerships was taken directly from information
provided by county staff.
Even with the strong foundation ofparmerships currently in existence, the county's parks
and recreation department will need to grow.
Expanded Partnerships Include:
1. Albemarle County Schools - Continue to coordinate county parks and recreation
needs with any new schools being built. Work to add additional school athletic fields to
the parks and recreation maintenance program.
2. City of Charlottesville Parks and Recreation - When the opportunity arises
partnerships will need to be sought for the development of additional recreation facilities
in the urban areas of the county. This will be especially critical if new indoor recreation
facilities are added. Further definition will be needed to determine what programs and
services will be the responsibility of the county and which will be offered by the city.
3. YMCA - The Y has long term plans to develop their own indoor center and the county
will need to follow this effort closely. Consideration should be given to discussing what
specific indoor amenities might be developed by the county and what complimentary
facilities could be offered by the YMCA. Existing recreation programming and services
should also be coordinated as well as future needs and expectations.
4. Youth Sports Organizations - To help fill the need for additional playing fields the
county should encourage youth sports groups to develop some of their own fields. This
could be on county property (by lease) or on private property acquired by the sports
group. The establishment of a well defined program that will give field development
seed money to youth sports groups should be considered to jump start such plans. Such a
program should also encourage basic daily and weekly maintenance to be handled by the
organization itself or a payment for services established for county maintenance. In
addition for facilities owned and maintained by the county there should be a per
player/per season fee estabhshed to cover basic maintenance costs. ~f the sports
organization handles its own maintenance (based on county developed standards) then
the per player rate would be reduced or even eliminated.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 54
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
New Partnerships Include:
1. Developers - It will be essential that the county work with new housing tracts to
establish basic park development standards that encourage the developer to not only set
aside property for parks (at a minimum size) and also potentially build the park itself to
county standards. Since there is no legal requirement for the develop to do this an overall
development incentive program would need to be established for this concept to work.
2. Homeowner Associations - For new housing tracts encourage the establishment of a
homeowners assessment for the on-going maintenance and operation of new parks and
recreation facihties that are part of their development.
3. Hospital - With Martha Jefferson Hospital poised to move to a new campus in the
coming years, there are plans to develop a significant community park as part of the
hospital grounds. This could provide an opportunity to partner for community festivals
and special events and even the development of permanent parks amenities that could be
utilized by the hospital as well as the general public.
4. University of Virginia Up to this point the university has developed and operated its
many sports and recreation facilities for student, faculty and staff use only. However
dialogue should still be held with the university when either the county or university is
considering the development of a sports or recreation amenity that might have some
influence on the other organization.
5. Senior Organizations Currently the county really does not have any type of senior
programming or senior oriented facility in place. However in the coming years
developing a strong partnership with an existing senior provider (Jefferson Area Board
for Aging or Senior Center Inc.) will be essential to expanding senior services in the
county. If the county moves into the development of indoor facilities then including
senior amenities that can be programmed by existing organizations will be important.
6. For Profit Sports and Fitness Providers Although much more difficult to establish,
exploring partnership opportunities with private health club providers should be pursued.
The possibility of contract operation of a county indoor sports or fitness facility is there
or even the actual joint development of facilities themselves.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 55
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
Section VII - Phase I Summary and Conclusions
The basic findings of the first phase of the recreational facilities needs assessment study
include:
Continued growth in the demand for park and recreation facilities, programs and
services in most every area will put continuing pressure on Albemarle Parks and
Recreation to provide more.
The county's parks and recreation department is recognized as a prime provider of
recreation facilities within the county and Charlottesville itself. The department
has a strong reputation for developing and maintaining quality facilities.
3. The county will need to have a broader approach to parks and recreation services
that has a focus beyond just youth sports, natural areas and large regional parks.
4. The top priority for the county will need to be the continued maintenance and
upkeep of existing parks and recreation facilities.
5. The greatest need for parks facilities is in the area of open space and natural areas
as well as trails and community parks.
6. There is a general lack of indoor recreation and sports facilities in the county and
county residents feel that these needs are not being met.
7. The county will need to clearly define its role in providing future parks and
recreation facilities and programs.
The continued development of strong partnerships with a variety of organizations
and providers will be critical to the successful provision of parks and recreation
facilities and services to county residents.
9. The county will need to develop a comprehensive user fee policy for facilities and
services that ensures a strong revenue stream for operations.
10. The county will need to continue to assume the maintenance of school fields and
park areas.
11. One of the areas with the greatest needs is indoor recreation.
12.
The greatest challenge to expanding parks and recreation services in the county
will be funding for capital development as well as operations. The county will
need to explore fimding options to make significant additions and improvements
to the parks and recreation facilities inventory.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch.
56
County of Albemarle Community Recreational Facilities Needs Assessment Study
13. The county will need to formalize long term agreements with existing partners,
and user groups. In addition the development of a comprehensive long range
master plan for the county's parks and recreation department that establishes a
roadmap for the future as well as outlines development and operational standards
is essential.
Ballard*King and Associates with Leisure Vision and Hughes Group Arch. 60
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
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.
LINK TO ATTACHMENT(S):
Strategic Plan Quarterly Report - October 03 to
December 03
Strategic Plan Framework
LEGAL REVIEW: No
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION: x INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
!
BACKGROUND:
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 priority
objectives, and incorporated changes suggested by the Board at their October 2002 and January 2003 strategic
planning work sessions. This information was incorporated into a FY 03/05 Plan of Action that serves as the
County's current Strategic Plan of Action. The Board receive Strategic Plan progress reports on a quarterly
basis and held their annual strategic planning retreat in September 2003.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Strategic Plan FY 03 FY 05 Quarterly Report
DISCUSSION:
The Board's strategic plan continues to provide focus for the County. During the past quarter, September 03
through December 03 the following activities took place:
Economic Development Plans and Polices: The Board has formally adopted the Thomas Jefferson Planning
District Commission's (TJPDC) Regional Economic Development Plan. The update of the County's
Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development Policy will reflect new data, coordinate with regional efforts and
will incorporate strategies such as the promotion of business development in specific Master Planned
Neighborhoods, when identified as necessary to their vitality. The update of the Economic Development Policy
will be scheduled as staff resources become available and in coordination with the other Comprehensive Plan
revisions that are currently underway. In the meantime, the Board plans to hold a public hearing in June
regarding the question of joining the Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership (TJPED).
Development of Long-range financial planning process: Staff developed a long-range financial planning process
that will better connect the strategic planning cycle to the operating budget and the capital budget. An annual
business plan will be included in the budgeting process. Staff presented this recommendation to the Board at
their January 7, 2004 meeting. Components of this process are slated to be incorporated into the FY 04/05
budget cycle.
29-01-04A04:53 RCYD
AGENDA TITLE:
Strategic Plan Progress Report
February 4, 2004
Page 2
Development of Life-lonq Learninq Goals: The Life-long learning work group, composed of representatives from
Albemade 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, have
continued working to develop goals for the County's Lifelong Learning Strategic Direction. This work group has
completed their work and the results of their efforts is slated to be presented to the Board for approval in April
2004.
Plans for new Goal regarding growth and urbanization: A County work group is finalizing the action plan
(objectives and strategies) and timetable for the County's new goal regarding growth and urbanization. The
team presented their recommendations and received guidance from the Board in December 2003. This detailed
action plan will be finalized will be incorporated into the Strategic Plan in February,
Development of "Outcome" Performance Measures: A County work group, composed of members of the
Leadership Team and Management Group, are continuing their work on a County-wide outcome-based
performance measurement system. The outcome measurement system should be in place at the beginning of
FY 04/05.
Progress on ten priority objectives: Staff members are continuing their efforts to achieve the County's ten
priodty objectives by the slated timelines. Attached for your review is the fourth quarter Priority Objectives
progress report, for the time period of October 2003 through December 2003.
Communication of the Strategic Plan: The Strategic Plan FY 03 FY 05 Plan of Action, associated documents
and the quarterly reports are available to the public on the Albemarle County's website.
The County's strategic plan framework is attached for the Board's reference.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the Board review this quarterly strategic plan progress report, and provide any additional
guidance for staff at this time.
Attachments (2)
04.018
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
Provide High Qua#~y
Educationa!
Opportunities for
Albemarle County
Citizens of a# ages
GOALS
(Goals to be developed
beginning fall 2003.)
Strategic Directions
2. Protect the County's
Natural, Scenic and
Historic Resources
GOALS
2.1 Protect and/or
)reserve the County's
rural character
2.2 Protect and/or
)reserve 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
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
4.1 Provide effective,
responsive and courteous
service to our customers
4.2 Fund County services in
a fair, efficient manner and
provide needed public
facilities and infrastructure
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 2003
February 4, 2004
Page 1 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 2003
I 2. Protect the County's Natural, Scenic, and Historic Resources[
IGOAL: 2.1 Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character I
IOBJEOTIVE:
2.1.1 By December 2003, the County will have a strategy in place to ensure the implementation of
completed neighborhood master plans.
[ HIGHLIGHTS I
The Implementation Plan Strategy has been completed and will be applied 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, CMP policies and long-term commitments are consistent
with the priorities identified in the master plan.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· Implement the Crozet Master Plan in accordance with these strategies. 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.
Page 2 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 2003
I 2. Protect the County's Natural, Scenic, and Historic ResourcesI
IGOAL: 2.1 Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character I
IOBJECTIVE:
2.1.2 By May 2004, the County will have an i.m, plementation plan in place that identifies the actions and
resources necessary to carry out the County s newly revised rural area policies.
I HIGHLIGHTS I
· Planning staff completed the draft Rural Area Plan in July, 2003, distributed it to the Planning
Commission in August, 2003, and began work sessions with the Commission in September,
2003.
· The Planning Commission's initial work sessions had been completed as of the end of
December, 2003, and a public hearing was held to get feedback on the first draft of the Plan.
· With consideration for comments provided at the public hearing, the Commission has begun
focused work sessions on the elements of the Plan in January, 2004.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· Staff will evaluate the recommendations/strategies in the draft Rural Area Plan and make
recommendations to the Planning Commission on implementation measures.
· Staff will insure all necessary steps have been identified to implement the adopted Rural Area
Plan recommendations.
· Implementation actions will be completed after the Commission completes its upcoming work
sessions.
· The Planning Commission is scheduled to take a final draft of the Plan to public headng in
March, 2004. It is hoped the Commission will then forward its recommended Plan to the Board
of Supervisors following this public hearing.
· The ultimate completion of the implementation plan is tied to the adoption of the Rural Area
Plan by the Board of Supervisors in May, 2004. Having the implementation plan in place at that
time is dependent on the Board's progress with their review of, public hearing process on and
action to adopt the Rural Area Plan.
Page 3 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 2003
2. Protect the County's Natural, Scenic, and Historic Resources
IGOAL: 2.2 Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources
tOBJECTIVE:
2.2.1 By December 2004, the County working in cooperation with Rivanna Water 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,
HIGHLIGHTS
· Staff has completed the draft of a recommended stormwater master plan and a proposed
groundwater ordinance. With this work completed, staff anticpates starting on this objective in
the first quarter of 2004 and completing it on time.
· 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. Additionally, staff is already working with
the City and UVa on joint efforts related to Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(VPDES) stormwater permits. This will provide valuable information and a "leg up" on
completing this objective.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· Establish public forums for sharing of concerns 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.
Page 4 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 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
· The primary components of an Environmental Management System (EMS), including a County
EMS Policy and a set of compliance guidelines, were completed by July 2003. However, the
establishment of a true EMS requires much more than policy and regulatory guidelines and will
takes years to fully implement. Efforts to establish revisions to operational guidelines,
establishing an ongoing employee training program and other activities are also necessary. The
original intent of this objective was to establish broad direction to ensure that the County's
operations become proactive regarding environmental impacts. We feel that this intent has
been achieved.
FUTURE ACTIONS I
· Continue implementation of the EMS methodology, which by definition is an ongoing iterative
process, with initial emphasis on compliance for all local govenment and school facil/ties.
· Hire a consultant to assist in on-going efforts to ensure compliance and establish proactive
operational guidelines.
· Assess the need for additional resources to ensure an effective ongoing EMS program and
address any additional needs in future budget cycles.
Page 5 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 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 I
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
materials and recYcling and provides reasonable solid waste disposal options for County citizens and
businesses.
HIGHLIGHTS I
· Project schedule has been prepared and is being followed by staff. Project is on-time and
completion is anticipated by July 1, 2004.
· A Steering Committee has been formed that includes County staffand representatives of UVa,
City, TJPDC, and RSWA (Citizen Advisory Council). Steering committee is responsible for
advising staff on issues to consider and assuring adequate public participation.
· The Steering Committee has provided guidance to staff on issues and information needs as
related to development of this strategy. Staff has begun the work on developing a draft strategy
for consideration.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· Establish public forums for sharing of concerns to be addressed with the plan.
· Recommendation will be brought before Board for consideration afterpublic review and
comment.
· An Implementation process will be part of the recommendation brought to Board.
Page 6 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 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
p ay.
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 and re-configuration of the Police Sector/Beat system.
(Police).
· The ECC has been working with Operational Medical Director, Dr. George Lindbeck to review
establishing Call Taking and Dispatch time standards for EMS agencies. Process is still on-
going. (ECC)
· Ongoing coordination of citizen training classes for the Citizen Emergency Response Team
(CERT) program. Over 80 citizens have been trained within this program. Two new classes will
be taught this quarter. (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)
· Received approval of a $6 million federal grant to implement a regional public safety
interoperability system to include the 800 MHZ radio system and the mobile data computer
system.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· 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 Safety Radio System for the Region.
· Install a Public Safety Mobile Data System for the Region.
· Work with the City and University to manage the $6 million Regional Public Safety
Interoperability Grant.
· The new service standards for Police, Fire and EMS will be incorporated into the County's
Community Facilities Plan.
Page 7 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 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
OBJECTIVE:
3.2.1 By March 2004, the County will develop policies and ongoing programs that increase affordable
home ownership options for households with incomes below 80% of median income.
. G.UG.TS
· Draft of Comprehensive Plan Amendment for an Affordable Housing Policy approved by
Planning Commission at Public Hearing for submission to Board of Supervisors. Work session
with Board was held January 7, 2004.
· Completed and delivered a report to the Board on housing activities during the past decade.
Report included summary of current demographics, housing market conditions, and
recommendations for improving affordable housing opportunities.
· Recommended support for upcoming legislation that will allow the Virginia Housing
Development Authority (VHDA) more flexibility in financing mixed-use and mixed-income
developments.
· Met with representative from Housing Virginia, a statewide nonprofit preparing to begin a
media blitz to promote education on affordable housing needs. Representatives from this region
provided information to support that campaign in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. Housing
Virginia's Board met in late January and will consider an area of the state for their pilot
campaign. At the time this quarterly report was prepared, the areas they considered were not
available.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· Public hearing and Board of Supervisors' action on Comprehensive Plan Amendment
February 2004.
· The Piedmont Housing Alliance is planning to submit a proposal to Fannie Mae for $3 million in
loan funds by spring 2004.
· Implement Housing Virginia's pilot program to increase affordable housing awareness, ff this
area is chosen.
· Execute contract with ICF Consulting to begth review of nonprofit housing agencies.
· Present recommendation/options to Housing Committee in February for use of Albemarle
Housing Initiative Fund (AHIF) monies to support affordable homeownership.
Page 8 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 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 contribute to the quality of life in the County.
OBJECTIVE:
13.3.1 Objectives and Strategies for this goal are being developed
HIGHUGHTS
· The Growth and Urbanization Goal Committee submitted three objectives to the Board of
Supervisors, which were approved by the Board at their December 3, 2003 meeting. The
objectives are as follows:
· 3.3.1 By December 04, the County will have an active program which promotes the visibility
and viability of the County's urban areas as distinct and attractive living and working
environments.
· 3.3.2 By June 05, the County will investigate, identify, and recommend effective ways to
organize our County government to provide appropriate support to the urban areas.
· 3.3.3 By June 05, the County will complete identified objectives and strategies that address
urban needs.
FUTURE ACTIONS ]
· By March 2004, the Growth and Urbanization Goal Committee will complete strategies for eacl~
objective and begin to move forward accordingly.
Page 9 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 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
IOBJECTIVE:
4.1.1 By July 2004, each County Department will establish and ina plement revised standards for
superi(~r customer service, which will include the implementation of additional customer-friendly
ways to deliver services.
HIGHLIGHTS
· Participants for the Customer Service Standards Setting Workshops have been selected for
each department.
· Kick off meeting for the group was held in early January, with materials and curriculum
distributed to all participants.
· 2004 Citizen Survey Work Group has been formed and is beginning to work on survey design
in consultation with UVA 's Center for Survey Research.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· The Customer Standards group will meet two more times - oncein February, and once in
March, with final standards to be completed by the March meeting and forwarded to the
Leadership Council.
· Internal and External Customers will be surveyed to identify ways to improve customer service.
· UVA's Center for Survey Research's County-wide Citizen Survey is now scheduled to be
fielded in May 2004.
Page 10 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 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:
14.1.2 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
· Staffpresented 2nd annual Local Government Human Resources Report to Board.
· Selected a consultant and Total Rewards Initiative Work Team has formed and have begun
their work.
· Based on Joint Board direction, staff is continuing to evaluate options to address market
competitiveness of compensation.
· Facilitated focus groups and have successfully developed organizational core competencies.
· Identified training program to focus on supervisory and management skills training to support
HPO principles.
· Developed a 360 degree performance measurement tool to assist with professional/personal
development.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· Based on the competency based model, staff will:
· Develop selection tools.
· 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 and conduct Employee Opinion Survey.
· Based on results of Total Rewards work team, staff will bring recommendations to Board of
Supervisors by June 2004.
Page 11 of 12
Albemarle County Strategic Plan Quarterly Progress Report
STRATEGIC PLAN
Quarterly Progress Report
Priority Objectives
October Through December 2003
4. Provide Effective and Efficient County Services to the Public in a Courteous and
Equitable Manner
GOAL: 4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed county public facilities and I
infrastructure
OBJECTIVE:
4.2.1 BY June 2004, the County will establish criteria defining fair and efficient revenue sources,
recovery of the costs of services, and fee schedules for beneficiaries of special enhanced or targeted
County services.
HIGHLIGHTS
· Staff has provided supplemental information to the Board of Supervisors regarding annual real
estate reassessments and its impact.
FUTURE ACTIONS
· Staff will present information related to annual reassessments and Tax Relief for the Elderly
Program to the Board of Supervisors and the information will be discussed further in budget
work sessions.
· Additional research related to the County's fee policies is scheduled to be undertaken during
the next quarter. The research will focus on defining appropriate fee levels, and comparing the
County's fees to other localities.
Page 12 of 12
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of the Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White, Koonce
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes ..___.,
REVIEWED BYj~ ~
BACKGROUND:
The 2002/2003 Audit has been completed and is submitted for your review. The field work and audit testing was completed by
Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, the County's external auditors.
DISCUSSION:
Certificate of Excellence
The Corn prehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) was submitted to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
for the Certificate of Excellence in Financial Reporting. This award has been received by the County for the last eight years and
is coveted by localities throughout the United States and Canada. We anticipate approval and expect to receive notification
within six months.
Summary Financial Data included with this Document:
-This is the second year our CAFR was published under the GASB-34 requirements and the attached information was extracted
for a general overview of the County's Financial Activities for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the FY 2002/2003 annual financial report. The audit committee met on Wednesday January
21, 2004 and reviewed the attached materials.
22-01-04P04:46 RCVD
04.010
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Comprehensive Annual Finance Report
June 30, 2003
Overview
The Comprehensive Annua! Financial Report consists of four sections: Introduction, Financial,
Statistical and Compliance.
The introduction section includes the transmittal letter, the County's
organizational chart, a list of principal officers and a copy of the 2002 Certificate
of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting.
The financial section has three component parts - Management's Discussion and
Analysis, the basic financial statements that include government-wide financial
statements and fund financial statements, and required supplemental information.
· The statistical section includes selected financial and demographic data related to
the County Of Albemarle, generally presented on a multi-year basis.
The compliance section is required under the provisions of the Single Audit Act
of 1984 and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget circular A-133, Audits
of State, Local Governments and Non-profit Organizations.
GASB-34 requirements:
Management's Discussion and Analysis. "A component of required
supplementary information used to introduce the basic financial statements and
provide an analytical overview of the government's financial activities." [SGAS
34]
Government-wide Financial Statements:
The Statement of Net Assets: This statement presents information on all of the
County's assets and liabilities. The difference between the assets and liabilities,
net assets, can be used as one way to measure the County's financial health, or
financial condition. Over time, increases or decreases in the net assets can be one
indicator of whether the County's financial condition is improving or
deteriorating.
The Statement of Activities: This statement presents information using the
accrual basis accounting method and shows how the County's net assets changed
during the fiscal year. All of the current year's revenues and expenses are shown
in the statement of activities, regardless of when cash is received or paid.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE COUNTY AS A WHOLE
Statement 'of Net Assets:
The foi[o~n~ table reflects- the ccndensed Statement bf t~=t Asset~:
Assets: .
i Current and bt,her a, ssets
TotfiI Assets
5umm_~r;' of ~: A~se:s . . . .' '" ..
As'cfJur. e 30..2003 and 2002:::' ~- - .'.
.:.. ',- ,~ . .
Governmental Component To~al '
A~iv~ties U~ft Entfty
2003 - 2002 -. 2003 2002 2003 2002
S 160,0qoS 132,680. S 82,331 $ .86..4302 242,33i. $ 219,1.10
Liabilities:
Other LiabiLities
.Long-term [iabiL(des
Tota[ U~bi[ities
9,381 S 9,553 $ 1,7,301 S .19,257 $ 16,682 S ~.8,8,~
100,6~9 79,954 - - -100,629 79,954
110,0-10 $. 89,507 $ 17,3QI $. t9.,257:S 127,311 s 108;764
Net Assets:
invested in capital ~s.sets, ' -
N.e( of re(ated.'debt $ - - 5,45.9 $ 2,350'.S
Restricted 26; 132 19, 71~
Uhrestricted ~8:39~ 2i,I12
Iota[ ~et assets $ 49,990 .$
60,740 .$ 62,7685 66,200 $
26,~32
-4,290 4,405 22,-685
19~717
.25,517
43, t73 $ 65,030 $ 67,173 S 115,020 S tl0,346
TheCommonw:a. Ln- ~' of ¥irsim;a require~ that counties, as welt as thei¢ financia[ debendent comp. o.~edt units,
be financed under a s~n~.[e tax~n~ ~trUcture. Thi~ resutts in-counties ~sEufn~ debt to f~Oan¢e ~pft&[ asse~,
such as pubt~c.schoots~ for their component un,ts. For the purpose oT this finahdat statement, the d~ ~ and
correlating' '~zset (or portion therefore) is redorded as an asset Add tong-term [i~f[~ty. ¢f the p~m~y·
~overnment. GASB Statement N'o. I4, Lbo Finondo~ Repqktin~ Ent~ reqdires that the Pd~W ~overnm'ent
and its component units, which m~e up the tot~ reporting entity, be accouSted for separately on the face
of the basic finandiai statements. The net asseb qf the total financial repordn~ entity best represent the
entity's finanda[ DOS~t~On. In the ~se' of the r~f
. . ?~,.,~;, ~ re~ordn~, ~ enuw, net ~.~s exc~eoed liabilities' by
~I l~,0 ~gp0< ~t June 30, 2u~ 'a 4.~,o increase from June 30~ 2002. ~h.e '--~-~ potion oz the reporun8
. . L~ ~b L .
=,~u ~y ~, ,=~ asse:s, $66, i.99~,499, r=~ts investment in caplt~[ ~ssets-(e.8., '~ '
...... ~=n~, bui~diqg~ and equipment),
[ess the ' -- ': o - .
ou~s~=nd~= debt ~ss~ia~ed with the ~s-set-~cquisition. ]ne restricted net asse~, wM~h .incre~ed
$6,420,673 fro~ ~e previous ye~r~ represent rZsbJrces that are pffmarf[y rose,ed'.for capital projects..
Total asse~ increased 523,220,827 from 2002 primarily, as .a r~su[t of the acquisi¢~n of aJditional office
· ~pace. An~ completed constmaction o~ s'eyer~[ ~choo[ buiidin~ renovation and'addition project. Total
liabilities a~o increased by S18,547,814 p~mari[y ~ a result of additional bo~ro~ng from the Virginia Pub'[ic.
Sdh~o[ Aut~o~ty to finance school construction and Public Fad[~ties Revenu~ Bonds issued to.purchase ·
additional office space ahd ~o finance upco~in'~ juvenile cou~ improvemehts.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
Statement of Activities
Year E6ded J~n~ 30, 20¢~
- .Funcdons/Prog, rams
PF~-~' Go¥1ern',men~ ·
Ge~er~t ~ovemment
Judicial ~ministr~don
. PubUc s~fe~y
PuNic wor~
He~t~ and welfare
Edu~t)on
· P~F~, r~readon and cu[turM
Commun~y development
lntere~ on lone-term debt
Tot~[ ~owrnment~t occludes
ProgF&m Revenues
Opjratin~ Cap. ital-
Char~e~ for Grants 'and Grants and
.~oenses 5endces Contrfbudon~ Contrfbudons
$ 7,899,554 $ 5_B5,382 $ 4B0,996
3,178~415 62.4,375 J,936,878
18,022,1~ Z,0~:5,~9 2, I74,207
I5,3~3,~B "31,~DD ~,z~0,653
57,303,3~
5,3~.060 243,808 5,000
_ I3,5~,113 5,235 2,799,~14
4,572,113
S .139.510.,¢50 S 3.,354,414 S 16.~26.848 $ 126..5~7 S
Net (E~pense') Revenue and
Changes jn Net Assets
Primary
G~¥ernment
GovernmentaI Component-
A~-t~ides Unit
(7, I33,I76) S
(617, t62)
(I 3,832,608)
(5,931,695)
(67,3~3,3~)
(10,772,76.0
(4,572,113)
1I 9,203,131.) S
Albemarle Coun~ Pub~ S~noob
S 1.10,241.3,66 S
GeneraI Reveffues
T~xes:
Gene~a'l property taxes, real and Cersonat
C~her
P~yment from County of Albemarle:
Educadon
Gran~ and contributions not restri~ed td specific programJ
U. se ~f ~>roperty
)fiYestment
Miscellaneous
4.827.876 S 36.298.040 S 871.7D5
'Total ~enera[ revenues
Chin~e in net assets
Net assets, be~nning of year
Net assets, -=nd of year
' The ~ccompans4ng notes to financial statemen~ ~re ~n integra( Dart of this statement.
$ (68,243,745')
76,D~Z,SD3
33,782,441
q'4,7~,835
721,570
438,509
263,791
126,019,64-2 S
65,330,729
464,051
2~3,708
66, I00,242
6,816,518 $ (2,143,503)
43,I73_,962 67, t73,.427
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
CPA 03-03, Affordable Housing Policy
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on a proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendment to include in the Plan the Affordable Housing
Policy developed by the County's Affordable Housing
Committee
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, White, Cilimberg, Banish,
BACKGROUND:
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY: /
/
The County's Affordable Housing Committee developed the proposed Housing Policy. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this amendment on October 28, 2003. The Commission recommended approval of the Housing Policy and the
proposed text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The Board held a work session to review the amendment on January 7,
2004 and recommended moving forward to public hearing on this amendment to receive public comment. This amendment is
considered an important implementation step of the Neighborhood Model.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
GOAL: 3.3 - Promote a variety of safe, sanitary and affordable housing types.
OBJECTIVE 3.3.2 - By December 2003, the County will develop policies and ongoing programs that increase affordable home
ownership options for households with incomes below 80% of median income.
DISCUSSION:
One modification has been made to the proposed amendment based on the Board's discussion from the prior work Session.
Additional language was added to the strategy that recommends that 15 pement of units in developments be affordable. This
strategy now reads as follows:
Set specific targets for the development of affordable units for Iow-and moderate-income families with sufficient flexibility to allow
for negotiation based on the development's size, location, timeline, and nature of surrounding area. At a minimum, 15% of all
units developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and
Housing Committee ora comparable contribution should be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the County
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of CPA 03-03, the proposed Affordable Housing Policy and related text amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments:
A--Affordable Housing Policy and Amendments to Land Use Plan Text
B--Additional Text Amendments to the Land Use Plan
04.019
ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY
Approved by the Albemarle County Housing Committee
March 2003
Format Revised July 30 and August 8, 2003
Revised 10/17/03, 1/27/04
PREFACE
With the adoption of the Neighborhood Model by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
and the charge given to address the inclusion of affordable housing in future developments, the
Albemarle County Housing Committee created a Housing Policy Subcommittee to draft an
affordable housing policy. The subcommittee, staffed by the County's Chief of Housing, drafted
an outline of options to be considered in developing the policy. In December 2002, the Housing
Committee and Office of Housing convened three focus groups consisting of housing providers
(nonprofits, lenders, realtors), developers, and neighborhood representatives to discuss the needs,
issues, and recommendations regarding affordable housing and public policy. The result of this
work and input is the following proposal offered as an affordable housing policy for Albemarle
County.
Some previous work had been done leading up to the development of the policy. The Housing
Committee and Board of Supervisors first defined affordable housing in July and September of
1998, respectively. The definition proposed in this policy maintains the intent of the previously-
adopted general definition. The Board, at the request of the Housing Committee, adopted a
Resolution of Intent to Amend the Comprehensive Plan in November 2002. Finally, although not
required for the adoption of this policy, the Board approved a request by staffto seek legislation
allowing Albemarle County flexibility in creating and Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance.
This enabling legislation was approved in the 2002 session of the General Assembly.
OVERVIEW/BACKGROUND
Albemarle County's population has grown from 68,000 in 1990 to 84,000 in 2000 (23.5%). The
number of occupied housing units in Albemarle County also grew with owner-occupied units
increasing from 11,562 to 20,991 and rental units from 7,361 to 10,885 representing an 81.5%
growth in owner-occupied units and 47.8% growth in rental units.
While the overall growth in occupied units appears to be consistent with population growth
based on an average of 2.5 persons per unit, the trends support the concern that cost of housing
for low- to moderate-income households is increasing. These trends include cost burden and
fewer affordable units being developed. It should be noted that, according to 1999 income data
from the U.S. Census, of 31,916 households, 15, 689 (49.1%) had incomes below $50,000.
Approximately 5,500 (17.3%) have incomes between $35,000 and $50,000. These income levels
would be equivalent to sixty- to eighty-percent of the area median income.
Cost Burden - According to the 2000 U.S. Census over 2000 owner-occupied households (12.4%)
had housing costs that exceed 35% of their household income, while 3100 renters (30.7%) had
housing costs exceeding 35% of household income.
Affordable Unit Development - According to County assessment records 11,632 houses in the
County would be considered affordable based on affordability defined as a maximum sales price
ATTACHMENT A
of approximately $175,000. This represents 43.6% of all houses (26,668). However in 2001
there were only 510 affordable resales dropping to 399 affordable resales in 2002. There were
1404 total sales 2002 including 426 units (28%) defined as affordable (under $175,000). Of the
total sales, 318 were new homes of which only 27 of those units (8%) were conSidered affordable.
Rental Housing - Most of the County's affordable rental housing (maximum 2-bedroom rent of
$725.00) was developed prior to 1998. Four of these are multifamily properties totaling 539 units
that have rents restricted by federal low-income housing tax credits. Since 1998, three properties
have been developed as unrestricted or family units. While the properties have added over 450
new units only 20 units offer affordable rents. In addition to these units, 97 units of elderly
housing was developed with rents restricted by funding sources (bonds and tax credits).
Data indicates that the current trends will continue to add pressures on housing affordability that
will impact 40% of the County's population. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been
developed to outline objectives and recommendations that may be used to support the County's
desire to increase the number of newly developed units that may be affordable for all rezoning
and special use permit applications.
DEFINITION
Affordable Housing, in general terms means safe, decent housing where housing costs do not
exceed 30% of the gross household income. Housing costs for homeowners shall include
principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner's insurance (PITI). Housing costs for
tenants shall be tenant-paid rent and tenant-paid utilities with maximum allowances for utilities
to be those adopted by the Housing Office for the Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Affordable Housing is defined, for the purpose of this policy, as those houses affordable to the
forty percent of the County population that have household incomes at or below 80% of the area
median income. For 2003, the maximum affordable home for purchase (80% median income)
would be $172,000 and maximum housing costs (rent and utilities) for tenants would be $787
(50% median income).
OBJECTIVES
It shall be the policy of Albemarle County to support affordable housing for those who live
and/or work in the County. In particular, the County will provide guidance, resources, and
incentives to the nonprofit and for-profit development and financing connnunities to increase the
supply of affordable housing (both rental and homeownership) for households with incomes
between 0 and 80% of area median income by
· Promoting safe, decent, and affordable housing options for low- to moderate-income
residents of Albemarle County and those working in and desiring to reside in
Albemarle County;
· Insuring variety/choice in housing and equal housing opportunities;
· Creating andpreserving safe, high quality and sustainable neighborhoods;
· Understanding diverse housing needs and special needs of various populations; and,
· Directing assistance to those populations least able to attain safe, affordable housing
through the private sector alone.
ATTACHMENT A
The County should encourage the preservation of all existing affordable housing units County
wide and the development of new housing in a manner consistent with the County's Growth
Management Policy. The provision of affordable housing should be focused on the designated
Development Areas to be consistent with the Growth Management Policy and to provide homes
where a higher level of services and facilities (both public and private) are available to support
residents. Affordable housing may be provided in the designated Rural Area consistent with
rural area policy and regulations.
STRATEGIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Strategy:
c~ Develop and implement necessary regulatory and administrative functions for establishing
affordable housing strategies in all applicable development review applications.
Recommendations
· Develop process to measure and track existing affordable housing stock.
· Update annual affordabilityfiguresfor sales prices and rentals based on median
income figures provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
· Assess and prioritize housing needs and associated supportive services required
throughout the housing continuum.
· Develop affordable housingproduction goals based on documented need/demand to
address identified housing priorities and to insure that low- and moderate-income
households have access to a sufficient supply of new and redeveloped housing units.
· Promote the use of the existing density bonus ordinance as a tool to achieve
affordable housing.
· Work with other County departments and outside agencies to promote a streamlined
and timely process for plan approvals.
· Implement the adopted affordablepolicy(ies) to the greatest extentpossiblefor all
rezoning and special use permit applications.
Strategy:
c~ Set specific targets for the development of affordable units for low-and moderate-income
families with sufficient flexibility to allow for negotiation based on the development's size,
location, timeline, and nature of surrounding area. At a minimum, 15% of all units
developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the
CountY's Office of Housing and Housing Committee or a comparable contribution should
be made to achieve the affordable housing goals of the Coun ,ty
Recommendations
· Develop procedures to work with developers to phase in affordable units within a
neighborhood as described in the Neighborhood Model including the use of
regulatory and moneta~ incentives available through the County, its partners and
state and federal programs.
· Work with the developers and nonprofit housing organizations to create procedures
to phase in affordable units in a development and ensuring that such units are
compatible with other homes in the development. Affordable units should include
both units for sale and units for rent.
ATTACHMENT A
Promote a design criterion that disperses affordable homes throughout a
development and encourages a variety of housing types. Use Master Plans developed
in designated development areas as guidance for the creation of affordable units that
are scattered throughout the development.
Strategy:
c2 Develop strategies and mechanisms including security instruments for the initial sale of
affordable units to promote long-term affordability and protect direct monetary investments
from public resources.
Recommendations
· Develop procedures for monitoring and enforcing occupancy and resale restrictions
required by law and~or funding sources.
· Establish afirstright-of-refusalfor the purchase of affordable units for rent or sale
by the County and/or its nonprofit partners.
· Develop deed restrictions and other mechanisms to insure affordable units developed
with County incentives remain affordable for a specific period of time (control
period,).
Strategy:
c~ Expand existing partnerships/programs and create new alliances with the private sector
including nonprofit and for-profit housing providers and lenders.
Recommendations
· -Develop methods for reviewing the processes and effectiveness ofprequalifying and
certifying families for purchase or rental units produced. Utilize the nonprofit
housing agencies and County's Homebuyer Clubs to identify and prequalify
purchasers and renters for affordable houstng units.
· Increase access to counseling by expanding the County ~ homeownership education
programs and utilizing similar services provided by others.
· Continue to support nonprofit housing organizations and help clarify roles and
responsibilities for each including, but not limited to, community development,
housing development, affordable lending, and housing counseling.
· Develop formal and informalproceduresfor dialogue with and among theprivate
sector (for-profit and nonprofiO development community to increase production of
affordable housing during the rezoning and special use permitting processes.
· Foster arrangements between for-profit developers and the nonprofit organizations
to facilitate the purchase of lots and/or units and insure occupancy of units by
eligible households.
· Promote affordable housing by increasingparticipation with the real estate
community including representative organizations (mortgage bankers, apartment
council, and homebuilders).
· Provide encouragement and incentives to nonprofit housing providers for the
purchase, construction, rehabilitation and/or management of affordable owner-
occupied and rental units.
· Promote understanding of the regional nature of affordable housing issues and
participate with neighboring jurisdictions in addressing these issues.
Strategy:
[] Seek additional resources including those through the state and federal governments for the
development and/or financing of affordable housing.
ATTACHMENT B
**Proposed text amendments are in bold, italic and underlined type. See pages 12, 21 and 23 for amendments.
Land Use
(As Amended July 10, 2002, Pages 8-32)
Introduction
The Land Use Plan provides direction for physical development in the County. It reflects
the "Community Vision Statement" as well as the County's projections for economic,
population, and housing demands. It balances these projections against growth
management goals and emphasizes the preservation and intelligent utilization of limited
resources. The Plan recognizes existing land use arrangements, supporting facilities, and
physical development limitations. The Land Use Plan recognizes the County's existence in
a regional setting and attempts to integrate the County's physical development with that of
neighboring jurisdictions. Such integration may be enhanced by future analysis and
cooperative regional planning efforts similar to the cooperative planning occurring among
Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia.
The Land Use Plan is but one element of the Comprehensive Plan, and must be viewed
as interrelated and interdependent with other goals and objectives. Proper Comprehensive
Plan decisions must be made by reviewing the Land Use Plan in concert with all other
Plan elements.
The Land Use Plan provides guidance for development that will be harmonious to the
natural and man-made environments and consistent with the County's Growth
management goals-which are to channel development into designated Development
Areas while conserving the balance of the County as rural areas.
The Land Use Plan for Designated Development Areas
In this section, the Neighborhood Model, a key component in the Land Use Plan, and its
goals are outlined. A general description of Development Areas is followed by functional
descriptions of the three types of Development Areas: the Urban Area, Communities, and
Villages. Thereafter, General Principles and standards for physical development in the
Development Areas, and specific standards for nonresidential land uses are outlined.
Finally, the Development Areas are profiled through narratives and maps that convey both
descriptive references and visual impressions of land-use relationships.
The Neighborhood Model
The Land Use Plan relies heavily on the Neighborhood Model that was appended to the
Comprehensive Plan in 2001. The Neighborhood Model supports a change in the form of
urban development from what Currently exists. It recognizes that, if the Development
Areas are to be the primary areas receiving residential growth, density must be increased
to at least the Iow end of the
ATTACHMENT B
density scale that is recommended on the land use plans for the individual Development
Areas. To achieve that density, the form of development must change and that form must
be more urban and less suburban.
Another key element is that master planning process guide growth in the Development
Areas. Also included with the Neighborhood Model are descriptions of innovative design
tools for creating more urban livable neighborhoods. Master Planning and ordinance
revisions require time for writing, adoption, and implementation. It is important that the
ordinance revisions are designed and written to be user friendly and that they contain
appropriate incentives to encourage the desired higher quality, higher density forms of
development as anticipated by the Neighborhood Model. As a result, there will be a time
lag between the adoption of the Neighborhood Model and its full implementation. It is
intended that the parts of this Plan which do not require a Master Plan or ordinance
revision, including but not limited to the 12 Principles described in later paragraphs, will
guide a new form of development for the County's designated Development Areas.
What the Neighborhood Model Offers
The Neighborhood Model seeks to change the form of development from a pattern of
sprawling, isolated buildings to a more compact and interconnected design. The
Neighborhood Model:
1. Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a
reality for the elderly, the young, and those with limited access to automobiles.
2. Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers can walk to
a public park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces.
3. Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and
pedestrian -friendly.
4. Incorporates varying densities and gradually allows for an overall increase in density in
the Development Areas to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.
5. Contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so residents have
convenient access to work, to services, and to entertainment.
Requires interconnected streets within developments and between developments so
that pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes,
and car trips are reduced in number and length.
7. Moves off-street parking out of sight and encourages on-street parking.
8. Mixes housing types and markets so that a full range of housing choices is offered
within the neighborhood.
9. Emphasizes re-use of sites.
9
ATTACHMENT B
10.Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography can be preserved.
11. Maintains a clear boundary between Development Areas and Rural Areas.
12. Provides for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring diverse and
continuous activity to a neighborhood.
The Neighborhood Model Goals:
Goals for the Neighborhoods are as follows:
Centers - Neighborhoods within the Development Areas will have centers or focal
points for congregating. These may include schools, parks, places of worship, civic
centers, or small commercial and social areas. Such features will be an easy walk for
most residents in the neighborhood,
· Open Space - Each Development Area will offer opportunities for public and private
outdoor recreational areas for active and passive recreation.
Network - A network of streets, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and bus routes will
connect new neighborhoods as well as existing residential areas and nonresidential
districts.
· Mixed Uses - Neighborhoods will contain a true mix of uses, including residences,
shops, and places of employment, as well as civic, religious, and cultural institUtions.
Building Placement and Scale - Consideration will be given to massing, height,
setbacks, and orientation of buildings so that these characteristics enhance the public
realm. In particular, garages will be less dominant at street view than houses.
· Alleys - Where topography permits, alleys will provide rear access to parcels, allowing
for and facilitating the provision of garages and utilities to the rear of houses.
Relegated Parking - Parking for the automobile will not result in an excessive amount
of paved area; parking on the street will be the norm, and the preference will be for
parking lots to be located to the rear and/or sides of buildings.
Variety of Housing Types - Each neighborhood will possess a variety of housing types
accommodating a range of incomes. Affordable units will be dispersed throughout the
NeighbOrhood and will be visually indistinguishable from other units.
Appealing Streetscapes - As the fundamental element of public space within the
neighborhood, the street will make the neighborhood inviting with street trees and
landscaping. Sidewalks or paths that connect houses to each other and to centers and
common areas will be the norm. Walks will connect sidewalks to front doors and main
10
ATTACHMENT B
entrances.
Transportation Options - Convenient routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses and
other transit including light rail will augment the street network. Public transit stops will
be located within each Development Area. Walking to them will be safe and
convenient. Waiting for transit will be comfortable and a normal part of activity in the
Neighborhood Center.
General Principle for Land Use in Designated Development
Areas:
For the County's growth management goals to be achieved, the Development Areas must
be attractive places to live and work. The land within the Development Areas must also be
used efficiently if designation of these Areas is to realistically help prevent sprawl
development. To this end, the Land Use Plan for the Development Areas is designed to
concentrate development in the Development Areas, particularly in the locations
designated "Urban. Areas" or "Communities." Planning for future development in the
Development Areas is at densities higher than in the past, with more varied uses.
Furthermore, revised plans for the Development Areas emphasize the County's desire for
design strategies that are more characteristic of small, well-planned city neighborhoods or
towns than of typical Iow-density suburban areas. Inevitably, some people will experience
more significant change than others and will find that nearby land uses may not be the
same character as their residential area. However, through careful design of the land use
plan and its development standards and recommendations, this situation can be beneficial
for the community.
Listed below are the principles that guide development of Development Areas. The
Development Areas Land Use Plan, as well as subsequent decisions regarding land use in
these areas should be reflective of, and consistent with, these principles:
1. Accommodate new growth in the County within Development Areas.
2. Encourage greater utilization of land in designated Development Areas by achieving
higher gross densities for residential and non-residential development than in the past.
3. Encourage infill development of vacant lands and development of under-used areas
within the designated Development Areas.
Development Areas shall not encroach into water supply watersheds, except for the
Crozet Community that shall not be expanded beyond the watershed boundary of the
Lickinghole Creek detention basin.
5. Avoid development of "Significant Areas" as designated in the Open Space Plan.
6. Discourage extensive linear style development along major roads.
11
ATTACHMENT B
7. All Development Areas shall be served by public sewer and water.
8. Plan for a system of transportation and community facilities and services that support
and enhance the Development Areas.
Encoura.qe the provision of affordable housin.q in a manner consistent with the
County's adopted Affordable Housin.q Policy (See Housin.q Policy, Section --, pp.
--, of the Comprehensive Plan).
A General Description of Development Areas
OBJECTIVE: Direct growth into designated Development Areas.
A long-standing goal of Albemarle County's comprehensive planning effort has been to
direct development into designated Development Areas. With the continuance of County
growth management goals, the current Development Area concept remains a critical
planning component. The Land Use Plan, including the Neighborhood Model, presents
mechanisms that will provide the best opportunity for the Development Area concept to
work. In combination with objectives and strategies presented in the Community Facilities
section of this Chapter, this requires establishing in the Land Use Plan a Development
Areas concept and design that demonstrates efficient utilization of land and services, while
responding to long-term market demands (see Map A).
As the Development Areas are intended to capture the wide range of development and
land uses necessary in Albemarle County, it should be reco.qnized that complete
separation of different uses is not expected. Rather, a balance of efficient land use and
appropriate separation and buffering is sought which may result in areas with a variety and
mix of uses. Residential uses may end up next to, or near, non-residential uses, with the
goal of achieving a harmonious relationship between the two.
Functional Description of Development Area
OBJECTIVE: Establish functional descriptions of the Urban Area, Communities, and
Villages.
The Development Areas consist of, among other things, a sense of place and
community identity. They are discrete areas with recognizable boundaries and
internal connections to the places within. There are, for instance, residential areas
and commercial areas and mixed-use areas. However, when viewed in the
context of the community as a whole, there is a sustainable mixture of residences,
jobs, services, recreation and amenities developed in a form that meets the
12
ATTACHMENT B
principles and overall objectives of the Neighborhood Model
Three types of Development Areas are traditional to the County's comprehensive planning.
As a group, they are intended to provide for the variety of land use designations necessary
to meet varied local market demands. They are also considered the focal point for the
provision of public services and facilities, either at a countywide or more localized level.
There are no minimum or maximum population standards for the different types of
Development Areas. It is intended that the functional descriptions guide the development
scale of the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. Determination of boundaries for each
Development Area is necessary to distinguish a self-contained geographic place and
preclude sprawl of development. For the purpose of accommodating future growth,
boundaries do not necessarily reflect entire existing social communities, but instead
attempt to delineate areas with some sense of place that contain significant areas of
developable land contiguous to existing developed areas. Boundaries are based on
resource protection priorities, primarily water supply watershed areas, and the opportunity
for the geographic area to be adequately supported by public services and facilities.
To the greatest extent possible, boundaries are defined by natural and man-made physical
features. Because Development Area boundaries do not follow property boundaries,
development proposals may extend outside of Development Areas. For those parcels
extending from Development Areas into the Rural Areas, development of the Rural Area
portion should not exceed Rural Area densities.
The functions of the three types of Development Area are hierarchical, as the following
descriptions indicate:
Urban Area (Neighborhoods I - 7)
Albemarle County's Urban Area, together with the City of Charlottesville, serves as a
regional urban center. It is intended to provide for a full variety and range of land uses and
densities, both residential and non-residential. It is intended to be more urban, or "city
like," in character and less suburban. It is to be supported by a full range of public utilities,
facilities, services and amenities.
The Urban Area is comprised of:
1. A full array of residential types and densities with an urban character of
development.
2. All service levels of retail, professional business, and industrial
activities (See service-level descriptions in the Land Use
Designations" section below).
3. Regional employment centers.
4. Regional water and sewer services.
13
ATTACHMENT B
5. Extensive urban and regional public facilities and services.
6. Access from. inter-county and major intra-county roadways and
transportation services.
7. Geographically defined neighborhoods that:
Contain well-defined residential areas, which are well
integrated with non-residential areas and may include any of
the land use designations defined in the "Land Use
Designations" section: open space, transitional, neighborhood
service, community service, regional service, office/regional
service, or industrial service;
Are supported by transportation systems that include
interconnected streets, pedestrian paths, bicycle circulation
systems, and mass transit.
Communities
Communities are smaller urban centers that are geographically removed from the Urban
Area. Like the Urban Area, they provide for a full variety and range of land uses and
densities, both residential and non-residential. They are intended to be more urban, or
"town like" in character. Communities are to be supported by a full range of public utilities,
facilities, services, and amenities.
Communities consist of:
1. Urban centers geographically removed from the Urban Area.
Full range of residential uses and densities and the full range of
non-residential uses described in the Land Use Designations
section.
3. Community core of mixed service and residential use, including
community and/or regional services.
4. Regional employment centers.
5. Well-defined residential areas.
6. Major intra-County roadways linked to the Urban Area.
Residential areas supported by an integrated and interconnected
system of streets; pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems;
neighborhood commercial, professional, business, and public
14
ATTACHMENT B
service uses; and public water and sewer.
8. Public facilities supporting the Communities and surrounding
County areas.
Villages
Villages provide for a specialized opportunity to accommodate growth. It is anticipated that
future Villages will more likely be established based on public requests rather than County
initiative. Therefore, more detailed design guidelines for future Village designation are
provided. Review of future requests for Village designations should be based on these
guidelines as well as other applicable goals, objectives, strategies, standards and
recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan.
Village Development/Design Guidelines
Villages are places that combine the feeling of "country living" with the amenities of a
Development Area.
Villages consist of:
A variety of housing types including single-family, two-family
and townhouse units, with a gross density not to exceed 6
dwellings per acre.
A village center of mixed service and residential uses. Such
uses shall be limited to neighborhood scale services,
including convenience shopping, other general retail and
service uses, medical and professional offices, and
accessory apartments and attached housing.
Public sewer and water systems. This reflects a concern
that, without public utilities, it is not possible to achieve
village density or land use patterns which, in turn, serve to
protect farmland and rural open space. It also reflects
concern for protecting the environment, and for the
economical and reliable provision of sewer and water
services.
4. Public facilities which support the Village and the immediate
surrounding Rural Area.
A linkage to the Urban Area and City of Charlottesville by
roads with adequate capacity (traffic-carrying ability, safety
considerations, physical condition)in order to move
residents conveniently between the Village and the urban
core. This guideline reflects a concern f.¢o~r using, but not
15
ATTACHMENT B
overloading, the County s main roads (arterial and major
cOllector), and a concern that minor roads (minor collector
and local) not become subjected to traffic loads which they
cannot tolerate, or which alters their character over time.
This also reflects a concept of a Village as including some
local services, but not major community or regional
services, which are better, provided in the Urban Area.
Designated Village Development Areas that are located at
places where historically a settlement has existed. The
proposed design should be a logical and harmonious
outgrowth of what currently remains of that settlement. Most
often, such locations will be at a crossroads, which provides
a central focus for village activities. A
proposal for an entirely new village location should
demonstrate that it maintains this principle of a central village
area at the logical confluence of streets and movement
patterns.
Development around a focal point, such as a public
building,
main street, park, greenway, or other open space or
common
area. Preferably, this focal point would incorporate an
existing
natural or cultural amenity. Within a proposed Village,
development shall emulate historic' regional patterns of
village
density and design, such that the feel of a traditional village
is
created. Elements, which can contribute to such a quality,
coUld
include:
· A rectilinear or interconnecting street pattern without
cul-de-sacs;
· Connections to existing streets;
· Compact lots;
· Shallowfront/sideyard setbacks;
· A village center of mixed uses and public facilities
and spaces;
· Walkways and paths which encourage pedestrians to
be the dominant mode of travel within the village
center; and
· Preservation and reuse of existing structures.
16
ATTACHMENT B
"Edge treatments" in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. Where
the boundaries of the Village meet the Rural Areas, new development
should be sensitive to existing character in the rural areas.
A unified Village plan developed in accordance with the requirements
for a planned development. In particular, the impact of the plan on
existing development should be emphasized. It is expected that
consideration will be given to the needs and wishes of those already
living and owning property in the area.
Infill Development Policy
OBJECTIVE:
Facilitate inflll development, including redevelopment of
existing structures or new development of vacant and under-
utilized areas, within existing Development Areas.
For the purposes of this Plan, infill development is defined as the establishment of new
land uses, either residential or non-residential, on undeveloped or under-developed sites
within the designated Development Areas. Infill development is considered one of the
key initiatives for implementing the growth management policy and is encouraged for the
following reasons:
· To use Development Area lands in the most efficient manner possible.
· To discourage sprawl development.
· To maximize the use/support of community services and facilities (roads, utilities,
transit, other services).
In the Development Areas, undeveloped areas consist of both small tracts of land (5
acres or less) and large tracts (over 100 acres). The reasons why these areas have not
developed to date vary, but the primary reasons which can be cited are:
The property owners desire to retain existing use and/or are unwilling to
sell for development at this time.
Physical characteristics such as topography (slopes, soils, streams),
size/shape of property make development more difficult as well as
incompatible existing adjacent uses.
Condition of existing roads, utilities or possibly other community services
are not able to accommodate anticipated scales of development.
17
ATTACHMENT B
Proposed public projects on, or near, vacant areas often affect planning
and development potential of an area.
Also, the cost to develop infill lots is often relatively high compared to other sites. This is
due to the fact that these areas are often surrounded by developed or zoned properties
which tend to escalate the speculative value of the property. The potential for
public/neighborhood opposition to new development proposals adjacent to existing
developed areas can also limit developer interest, particularly for smaller sites.
Consideration of permitting more intensive uses or densities on some properties may be
necessary to offset development costs including measures necessary to
minimize impacts of development. A commitment of the County to support infill
development proposals consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is essential in
facilitating infill development. To help achieve infill, an inventory of undeveloped and
underdeveloped properties within the County's urban neighborhoods, communities, and
villages which are available for development should be updated annually.
The Master Planning effort for each Development Area will help to implement infill
development and will address impediments limiting the opportunity or attractiveness of
sites for development. It will also encourage market forces to operate in a manner that
makes these areas attractive for development. This commitment will include making
changes to existing ordinances and the adoption of new ones to encourage infill
development and/or the participation by the County in infrastructure capital projects
designed to promote infill development.
Strategies for Infill Development
Strategy
Plan/provide for necessary infrastructure improvements that are
currently impediments to development of vacant sites.
Recommendations:
Schedule public improvements needed to support/encourage infill
development within undeveloped portions of the Development Areas;
Develop plans for proposed public projects in a timely fashion so that they
may be incorporated into new developments, as necessary.
Strategy: Provide for greater flexibility in type of use and density of
development.
Recommendations:
18
ATTACHMENT B
· Provide for greater flexibility in gross development densities within the Land Use Plan
residential categories, with a focus on increasing gross densities.
· Consider rezoning vacant properties designated for residential use to reflect the
recommended densities of the Land Use Plan.
· Support innovative development and design concepts, particularly those that
maximize gross density of development.
· Promote a mixture of uses for new development and redevelopment.
Strategy:
Consider greater flexibility in development regulations which
may limit development opportunities (without compromising
issues of general health or safety).
Recommendations:
Evaluate and amend zoning and subdivision regulations in a manner that results in
opportUnities for increased development densities (including, but not limited to: critical
slope regulations and open space requirements; reduction of area requirements for
planned developments; density bonus provisions; commercial parking requirements,
subdivision street and lot access requirements; possible impediments to "alternative"
development designs).
· Utilize the Open Space Plan Development Area Composite Maps as a guide for
waiver requests from the critical slopes regulations.
Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas
Land Use standards provide guidelines for development which are consistent with the
Growth Management goals and are in keeping with the man-made and natural
environment. These standards provide the basic framework for the review of
development proposals for the Development Areas, in conjunction with other applicable
ordinances and regulations.
The twelve principles contain the characteristics which the Development Areas are to
reflect at buildout. However, it is recognized that as individual proposals are considered,
all of the principles of the Neighborhood Model, listed as the General Land Use
Standards, below, may not be equally applicable to any specific proposal. All proposals
will need to be considered in a more global context, particularly as they relate to the mix
of uses. It is recognized that there are multiple applications of the principles of the
Neighborhood Model and balanced, rational and reasonable application of those
principles is expected.
19
ATTACHMENT B
General Land Use Standards
Standards that apply to all types of development in the Development Areas are provided
as "General Land Use Standards." These standards include the twelve principles of the
Neighborhood Model. More specific standards for non-residential and residential land
uses are provided to address the different Iocational and surrounding character aspects
of those categories.
General Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas
Pedestrian Orientation - A pedestrian orientation should be reflected throughout the
Development Areas. Sidewalks and pedestrian paths should be provided in new
developments, redevelopment projects and in County projects funded through the
Capital Improvements Program.
Neighborhood-Friendly Streets and Paths -- Streets should be recognized for their
function within neighborhoods rather than merely transportation routes for cars. Curb and
gutter, sidewalks and street-trees help to give streets a more human scale.
Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks -Connections between
developments with an appropriately scaled transportation network, should be provided to
maximize a sense of community and provide additional transportation links. Emphasis is
placed on linkage between developments and just not within each development.
Minimize t The impact of developments should be minimized on major roads to the
greatest extent feasible by limiting access points to major roads arterials such as Route
29, by providing side street access, service roads, and/or joint accesses. Provide for
Ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations should take place
through the reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing
utilities in a manner consistent with planned transportation improvements. While
interconnected street systems will be the primary form of interconnection, other modes of
travel should be incorporated into the transportation system including bikeways,
pedestrian paths and mass transit.
Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space - Parks and recreational amenities
should become centralized features in the Development Areas and in individual
developments. Important environmental features, such as floodplains, critical slopes, and
forested areas shown on the County's Open Space Plan, should be protected and
preserved as open space. Development should be concentrated and clustered around
these features to the maximum extent possible and provide vistas for public enjoyment.
Existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions should be maintained.
Neighborhood Centers - A neighborhood center provides a focal point for residents
and pedestrians. Centers may be employment hubs, areas of mixed uses, parks, places
of worship, or other activity areas. Centers should be recognized and enhanced within
neighborhoods. New centers should be built with pedestrian access in mind.
20
ATTACHMENT B
Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale - New and redeveloped buildings should be
sited and arranged to emphasize a positive relationship between pedestrians and
buildings and to provide appropriate spatial enclosure. As a rule, building orientation
should be to public streets and to private streets when the private street is in located in
front of the building. Yards should be shallow in order to allow for good spatial
enclosure. Massing and scale should be appropriate to the area in which buildings are
proposed. Attention should be paid to architectural details.
Relegated Parking - Parking should be located to the side and rear of structures and
generally should not be the dominant feature seen from the public road or other adjacent
areas. New development or major redevelopment design plans should include features
to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality. Parking areas, roads, and
other impervious areas should meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed use and
possible future uses. Avoid parking areas
which exceed that which is necessary for the anticipated development. For large retail
developments, parking capacity needed only on a few peak shopping days of the year is
amenable to design alternatives to flat blacktop.
Mixture of Uses --Where appropriate, residences can exist side-by-side or within close
proximity to shops and places of employment, as well as civic, religious, and cultural
institutions.
Mixture of Housing Types and AffordabilitymThe Development Areas should reflect a
variety of housing types and costs and be provided in a manner consistent with the
Count's adopted Affordable Housing Policy (See Section --, of the
Comprehensive Plan). Unless a mixture of housing of housing can be found in close
proximity to an infill site, new development proposals should offer a variety of housing
types for different income levels. The Development Areas are recognized as the most
appropriate places in the County for affordable housing. Provision of services to the
Development Areas as well as a more compact area for development increases
opportunities for use of transit. The Development Areas also offer opportunities for
housing to be in close proximity to jobs, shopping, parks, and public schools. Affordable
housing should not be built in "enclaves; rather, it should be incorporated into new
housing developments and units should have a similar exterior appearance to other units
in the neighborhood.
Redevelopment-The County and developers alike should concentrate on redeveloping
existing sites where the capacity of development has not been met. Adding second
stories to buildings and mixing residential uses with commercial uses make for better
urban/rural relationships and can reduce pressure to expand the Development Area
boundaries. Adaptive re-use of historic buildings to uses which preserve the building's
architecture and site character should be encouraged as a method of historic
preservation.
21
ATTACHMENT B
Site Planning that Respects Terrain - New development and redevelopment should
reflect sensitivity to existing grades to the greatest extent possible and promote
architectural design that fits into grades. Emphasis should be placed on preserving
areas of environmental sensitivity shown on the Open Space Plan. Where extensive
grading is necessary, site grading should result in slopes that are attractive, functional,
easy to maintain, and which promote interconnectivity of parcels.
Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas -Distinctive boundaries should be made
between the Development Areas and the Rural Areas. In most cases, development
should abut the rural boundary rather than transition down to it.
Fiscal Impact Analyses - The County should continue to consider fiscal impact models
and studies when evaluating future land use changes prior to rezoning approvals.
Appropriate planning/phasing of development to match service/infrastructure availability
and capacity should be established.
Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial, and
Industrial Land Uses
Residential Land Use Standards
In addition to the general standards noted above, residential standards are presented
here as a basic framework to guide future residential development proposals. It should
be recognized that substantial changes in the economy, housing market, and housing
industry may warrant flexibility in the application of these standards. These standards are
intended to encourage the provision of various housing types and provide for affordable
housing. It is intended that all dwelling types and forms of ownership be permitted within
the County.
Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses
The twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model do not speak directly to
density; rather they describe the characteristics desired in the physical
development of the land. These physical characteristics are expected to
enhance opportunities for greater densities. It should be understood that,
in the short term, an overall increase in density may or may not occur as a
result from the adoption of the Neighborhood Model. However, it is
intended that where possible, and practical due to terrain, availability of
public utilities and adequate public infrastructure and consistency with the
Neighborhood Model, that overall development density, be at as high a
level as practical.
22
ATTACHMENT B
Provide for affordable housin.q units for Iow and moderate-income
families. Set specific targets for the development of affordable units
with sufficient flexibility to allow for ne.qotiation based on the
development's size, location, timeline, and nature of the surrounding
area. At a minimum, 15 percent of all units within development
proiiects should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of
Housin.q and Housinq Committee or a comparable contribution
should be made to achieve affordable the housinq qoals of the
County. Encourage the use of the bonus provisions of the Zoning
Ordinance to increase density and provide for affordable housing is
encouraged. Where demonstrated, by economic or other considerations,
that density in excess of that recommended by the Plan is warranted to
accommodate an affordable housing proposal, a reasonable density
increase should be provided.
In rezoning deliberations, the County should be mindful of the intent to
encourage inflll development, contain most future growth within designated
Development Areas, and avoid rural development pressure. Unless
contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential rezoning to the
upper end of the Comprehensive Plan recommended land use density-
ranges (i.e. Neighborhood or Urban scale) should be favored even if the
density exceeds that of surrounding developments.
Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas can be accomplished with
standards for the relationship of residential use to adjacent non-residential
uses. Buffering, screening and physical separation of non-residential uses
can alleviate such relational problems. The current provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance addressing the screening of objectionable features and
dissimilar uses provide for appropriate protection. These features should
be retained. In addition to these regulatory requirements, care should be
taken in residential design to provide for buffering, orientation, and other
measures to avoid conflicts with surrounding uses. Identification of
appropriate land use relationships is important in applying land use
designations as well as in considering development proposals.
23
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR~9_ol_o4Ao2:,~ 1 RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
Quarterly Financial Report
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Presentation of the Year to Date Quarterly Financial
Report for the Six Months Ended December 31st.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters; Ms. White
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION: X
INFORMATION:
The attached Quarterly Financial Report provides information on the county's general fund and fund balance as of
December 31,2003. Also included is a bar chart that compares current year revenue and expenditure data with data from
the previous year.
-DISCUSSION:
(Sin millions)
A. Attachment A: General Fund Quarterly Financial Report:
1. Revenues:
The Department of Finance estimates that current year General Fund revenues, not counting other fund
transfers or fund balance appropriations, will exceed the July 1, 2003 appropriated budget by
$3.478 million, 2.44%, an increase of $0.280 million from the September 30, 2003 Quarterly Financial
Report.
Real Estate Tax revenues are estimated to exceed budgeted revenues by $1.678 million, which is
a $0.126 million dollar increase over the September report. The increase is primarily due to the
final 18.7% January 1, 2003 reassessment rate and additional new construction, both of which
substantially exceeded the preliminary rates used for budget preparation.
Personal Property Tax revenues, exclusive of PPTR, are estimated to exceed budget by $0.342
million, a slight $0.030 million dollar increase since September, mainly due to new vehicle sales,
stabilizing used vehicle values, and a slight increase in business equipment pumhases. Total
personal property revenues, inclusive of PPTR, are estimated to exceed budget by $0.993 million
Sales Tax revenues are estimated to exceed budget by $0.450 million due to the moderate
economic recovery that appears to be taking hold. This is an additional $0.238 million since the
September report.
Utility Tax revenues are estimated to exceed budget by $0.201 million, another $0.168 million
dollar increase since September, due to a greater than anticipated increase in cellular receipts
offset by a slight decrease in power company receipts. Landline telephone receipts should be
relatively stable.
Other Local Taxes are expected to be approximately $0.297 million over budget, due to additional
Public Service Tax and Clerk fees offset by reduced Machinery & Tools tax revenues. This is
slightly higher by $0.227 million than reported in September.
Other Local Revenues are still estimated to be lower than budgeted by approximately $0.173
million, just slightly lower than the $0.159 million potential shortfall reported in September. This
lower than anticipated collection in other local revenues is due to greater than anticipated
recordation and seller tax receipts offset by reduced interest earnings due to continued Iow rates.
AGENDA TITLE:
Quarterly Financial Report
February 4, 2004
Page 2
State revenues, inclusive of PPTR, and Federal revenues are estimated to exceed budget by
$0.659 primarily due to greater than anticipated PPTR and Social Services reimbursements.
However, this estimate is $0.282 million lower than reported in September largely due to reduced
Compensation Board reimbursement expectations.
Use of Fund Balance is estimated to exceed budget by $2.459 million due to additional
appropriations as detailed in the Fund Balance Report, attachment C.
Use of Other Funds is estimated to be $0.134 less than budget due to anticipated reduced E911
transfers.
Expenditures:
Total expenditures, including transfers, are within appropriate levels (47.3%) for the first six months of the
fiscal year.
· Departmenta expenditures are at 48.8% of current budget
No attempt has been made to revise expenditure estimates based on the first six months of the
fiscal year except for supplemental appropriations.
Revised Revenues less .Revised Expenditures (yellow boxes in right hand corner):
Revised revenues less expenditures show a projected $3.331 million savings by the end of this
current fiscal year (June 30, 2004) based on the January revised revenue estimates and
supplemental appropriations. This is a net $0.277 million increase since the September Quarterly
Financial Report.
Available Fund Balance is $0.184 million, which reflects the revised FY04 revenue estimates plus
the FY03 carryover reduced by approved supplemental appropriations. This is a net decrease of
$1.451 million since the September Quarterly Financial Report, due to the transfer of $1.070 million
in FY03 expenditure savings to the Capital Improvement Program according to year-end carry-over
policy and additional appropriations of $0.520 million since September, consisting mainly of $0.276
million for the FY04 deferred compensation increase a nd $0.182 million to restore frozen positions
in the FY04 budget.
Preliminary Projected End-of-Year Available Funds are estimated to be $3.515 million, which
includes $0.184 million in available fund balance, plus the net projected revenues of $3.331 million.
Attachment B: Annual BudRet Comparison Report as of December 31, 2003
This bar-chad-based report tracks changes in revenue and expenditure changes over time:
Revenues:
· Revenues from real estate property taxes are anticipated to increase over both last year and the July
1,2003 Appropriated Budget.
The local share of personal property taxes is anticipated to increase over both last year and the current
year budget. This reflects only the 30% share with the other 70% shown as part of the PPRT revenues
in the state revenue category.
· Revenues from sales taxes, utility taxes, meal taxes and other local taxes and revenues are also
anticipated to increase over both last year and the current year budget.
· State revenues show an increase over both last year and the current year budget.
2
AGENDA TITLE:
Quarterly Financial Report
February 4, 2004
Page 3
· Federal revenues remain fairly level corn pared to last year and the current year budget.
Expenditures:
This report shows minor increases in FY03/04 over FY02/03 in all functional areas. Transfers to the School
Division show an increase over last year.
Attachment C: Fund Balance Report
This report indicates that the County:
1. Has an audited FY03 balance of $16.773 million;
Appropriated $3.588 million from the fund balance for budgeted FY04 projects and supplemental items, which
reduce the fund balance as of December 31st to $13.184 million. All approved appropriations are listed on
Attachment C.
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. Remaining fund balance is $0.184 million.
Fiscal Impact Discussion
1. Current Year Revenue Estimates are based on January 15th Department of Finance revised estimates, which
look at FY03 actual revenue collections, as well as any trends from current year collections. Economic 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 $3.515 million in available funds for the end of fiscal year 2004 is positive information for the
Board to have as the FY05 budget worksessions proceed. Some of these projected carry-over funds may be
available for one-time initiatives in either the operating or capital budgets for FY2005.
=
Should the Board decide to implement the $0.02 cent tax rate reduction, the anticipated end-of-the-year
balance would be reduced by approximately $1.0 million dollars or half of the anticipated annual savings from
lowering the tax rate. Therefore, FY04 available funds seen at the bottom of Attachment A would be
reduced to $2.515 million.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends acceptance of the Second Quarter Fin ancial Report for FY03/04.
04.017
3
0 ~ (N (~t CO CO 0
o. o q o.
suo.ll!W u! $
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
suo!ll!W u! $
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2c)-0t-04A02: ~ 1 RCVD
AGENDA TITLE:
FY05 Updated Revenue Projection Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on FY05 Revenue Projections and Budget
Guidance
AGENDA DATE:
February 4, 2004
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: X IN FORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Mr. Breeden, Mr. Walters
BACKGROUND:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
Each January, the Department of Finance updates the preliminary revenue projections for the current and
upcoming fiscal years. These updated revenue estimates are an additional step in the budget preparation process
and revise the basis of the recommended budget proposals to come before the Board of Supervisors next March.
In October 2003, Fiscal Year 2005 General Fund revenues were projected to be $158,221,997 or a $13.4 million
'dollar increase (9.2%) over the FY04 budget. The most recent January revenue projection indicates that total
General Fund revenues are estimated to be $159,578,455, a $14.7 million dollar increase (10.2%) over FY04
budgeted. This change reflects a $1.356 million dollar increase over the October projection.
DISCUSSION:
FY 2005 Revenue Revisions/Preliminary Estimates
The attached chad (Attachment A) shows the changes in the FY05 revenue projections (Column C-B) since
October, as well as the revised projected revenue increases (Columns C-A) over the FY04 budget. Highlights of
those changes are:
Local revenues, including PPTR, account for a $14.1 mllion dollar increase (10.7%)over the FY04 budget.
State and Federal revenues, excluding PPTR, account for a $0.705 million dollar increase (6.5%) over the FY04
budget.
Real Estate revenues are projected to increase by $10 million (15.4%) over FY04, which is a slight increase of
$0.623 million since October, primarily due to new c~)nstruction as well as an increase in the anticipated
reassessment rate from15% to 16%. The January reassessment is currently anticipated to be in the range of 15%
to 20%, so 16% still reflects a fairly conservative estimate at this point. On the national and state levels, real estate
value increases have begun to slow down. Locally, we are still experiencing a very active market. The FY05
estimate is based on the current $0.76 tax rate.
Personal Property Tax, including PPTR (Personal Property Tax Relief)
Personal Property Tax revenues, inclusive of PPTR, are estimated to increase $1.96 million (7.6%). This is a slight
$0.139 million decrease from the October 2003 preliminary projections primarily due to a small decrease in the
coil ection percentage. Although FY04 revenues were conservatively budgeted, the economy now appears to be in
a midst of a moderate recovery with new car purchases continuing at record levels and vehicle values appearing to
have stabilized.
AGENDA TITLE:
FY05 Updated Revenue Projection Update
February 4, 2004
Page 2
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. Although the rate has not been set for FY05, the Governor's
Budget proposes increasing reimbursements to 77.5% for 2005, 85% for 2006, 92.5% for 2007, and 100% for 2008
Public Service Tax
Revenue is estimated to increase $0.190 million (10.2%), which includes a slight increase of $0.130 million over
the October 2003 preliminary projections, due to increased railroad traffic.
Mobile Home Tax
Mobile Home Tax revenues are estimated to be approximately the same.
Machinery and Tools Tax
Machinery and Tools Tax revenues are estimated to decrease $0.234 million (24.9%), due to plant closings and
relocations over the last several years.
Prior Year Collections and Fees
Revenues are estimated to increase $0.317 million (22.4%), due to augmented compliance efforts and improved
economic conditions, although they have decreased slightly by $0.049 million since the October projection.
Sales Tax
Local Sales Tax revenues are estimated to increase by $0.950 million (9.0%), which is a $0.266 million increase
over the October 2003 projection. The projected increase is due to improved economic conditions, which are
expected to continue.
Business License Fees
Business License Fees are estimated to increase $0.341 million (4.9%) over the FY04 budget primarily due to
strength in the retail merchants and home improvement/repair sectors of local business activity. This projection is
up slightly since the October projection by $0.078 million.
Motor Vehicle License Fees
Motor vehicle license revenues are estimated to be approximately the same.
Utility Taxes
Utility Taxes are estimated to increase over the FY04 budget by $0.302 million (4.5%) up slightly from the October
projection by $0.059 million. The projected increase is primarily 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%) due to the continued shift from home
consumption to outside prepared meals.
Other Local Tax Sources
The remaining local tax sources (i.e., recordation, transient occupancy, and miscellaneous local taxes) are
estimated to increase by $0.30 million (13.6%). The increase is primarily due to continued strong real estate
purchase and refinancing activities.
Other Local Revenue
The $0.189 million (4.8%) decrease in the Other Local Revenue category has been revised slightly upward by
AGENDA TITLE:
FY05 Updated Revenue Projection Update
February 4, 2004
Page 2
$0.106 million over the October projection. This net revenue decrease is impacted by several items. Interest
income is estimated to decrease $0.24 million (68.1%) on County funds deposited in banks due to Iow interest
rates and cash balances as well as a $0.150 million (100.0%) decrease in rent from the Wachovia Building. These
decreases are somewhat offset by net increases from various recovered costs, service fees, and traffic fines.
State Revenues(excluding PPTR)
State revenues, excluding PPTR, are estimated to increase by $0.501 million (7.1%) primarily due to increased
distributions from ABC profits, Social Services reim bursem ents, and additional 599 law enforcement funding. This
estimate reflects an additional $0.365 million in revenues since the October projection, primarily in the Social
Services reimbursement revenues.
Federal Revenues
Federal revenues are estimated to increase $0.204 million (5.3%) primarily due to increased Social Services
reimbursements and new Department of Justice COPS grants. These revenues have decreased slightly since the
October projection by $0.093 million.
Transfers
Transfer revenues are estimated to decrease $0.67 million (3.0%). This line reflects transfers from other funds,
such as the E-911 Fund, the Tourism Fund, and others, where they were originally reported as revenues into the
General Fund to support applicable general government program operations.
Revised Allocation of New Local Tax Revenue between General Government and the School Division
Attachment B is provided to point out two things: one, the change in local tax revenues since the October projection
(both the October an d January local tax estimates have been revised to reflect a $0.74 cent tax rate, as requested
by the Board); two, the distribution of those revenues between the school division and local government based on
the 60/40 split.
The change in local tax revenues over the October projection shows an increase of $0.980 million with an annual
increase of $11.9 million over the FY04 budget after the $8 million revenue sharing payment is transferred to the
City. After subtracting the transfers to the ca pital and debt servi ce funds, a pproximately $10.324 million is available
for general government and school division operations based on the revised January projections.
Of the $0.980 million increase from the October to January projections, the school division will receive an additional
$587,942 and general government will receive an additional $391,961. As shown in the yellow box, this reflects an
increase of $6.194 million for the school division and $4.130 million for general government.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board accept the updated FY05 Revenue Projections and approve the revised
allocation of the increased Ioca~ tax revenues between general government and the school division.
04.016
3
UPDATED GENERAL FUND REVENUE PROJECTIONS
Fiscal Years Ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2005
Description
Property Taxes
Real Estate, Current
Personal Property (incl. PPTR), Current
Public Service, Current
Mobile Home, Current
Machinery & Tools, Current
Prior Year Collections & Fees
Subtotal, Property Taxes
Other 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
(A) (a) (C) (C) -(B)
Appropriated Oct Prelim January Variance
Budget Estimate Estimate 01/04 - 10/03
FY 04 (1~ FY 05 (2) FY 05 (3) ..FY 05
Attachment A
(c)- (A)
Jan FY04
Esfiroate less Budget
$ Inc/(Dec) % Inc/~Dec)
Subtotal, Local Revenues (incl. PPTR)
State Revenue (excluding PPTR)
Federal Revenue
Subtotal, State & Federal Revenues
$65,134,260 $74,521,718 $75,145,350 $623,632 $10,011,090 15.4%
25,727,423 27,825,181 27,685,516 (139,665) 1,958,093 7.6%
1,874,416 1,933,770 2,065,000 131,230 190,584 10.2%
75,363 74,905 74,000 (905) (1,363) (1.8%)
939,231 707,690 705~ 890 (2,000) (233,541) (24.9%)
1,415.200 .1,781,250 1,732,750 (48,500} 317,550 22.4%
95,165,893 106,844,514 107,408,306 563,792 12,242,413 12.9%
Total, GENERAL FUND REVENUES
Transfers
10,550,000 11,234,000 11,500,000 266,000
7,029,920 7,293,500 7,371,000 77,500
2,184,116 2,150,000 2,185,000 35,000
6,719,953 6,962,500 7,021,950 59,450
3,988,200 4,150,000 4,150,000 0
575,000 600,000 550,000 (50,000)
1,602,482 1,876,500 1,924,500 48,000
32,649,671 34,266,500 34,702,450 435,950
3,931,209 3,636,215 3,742,197 !05,982
Total, GEN. FUND REVS. & TRANSFERS
Fund Balances
131,746,773 144,747,229 145,852,953
7,016,727 7,152,673 7,517,481
3,873,142 4,170,010 4,077,060
10,889,869 11,322,683 11,594,541
Total, GENERAL FUND
~ 156.069.912 157.447.495
2,197,618 2,152,086 2,130,960
~44.834.260 ~ 159.578.455
~,129 699 0 0
950,000 9.0%
341,080 4.9%
884 0.0%
301,997 4.5%
161,800 4.1%
(25,000) (4.3%)
322,018 20.1%
2,052,779 6.3%
$145.963.959 ~ $159.578.455
(1) Reflects July 1, 2003 Appropriated General Fund FY03/04 Budget
(2) Finance Department Preliminary Revenue Projections as of October 20, 2003
(3) Finance Department Updated Revenue Projections as of January 22, 2004
(189,012) (4.8%)
1,105,724 14,106,180 10.7%
364,809 500,754 7.1%
(92,950) 203,918 .5..3%
271,859 704,672 6.5%
£21,126) (.66 658) .(3.0%)
~ 14.744.195 ~
_0 (1,129 699) -(100.0%~
_$1.356.457 9,30/0