Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-03-17 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of March 17, 2004 March 18, 2004 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION JOINT MEETING WITH SCHOOL BOARD 1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 4:19 p.m., by the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Dorrier, and Chairman of the School Board, Ms. McKeel. All BOS members and School Board members were present. Presentation: Albemarle County Compensation Report. APPROVED the following recommendations from the Compensation Report: o For positions that are recruited on a regional/national level, identify competitive market as the identified localities within our adopted market that we typically recruit against for those positions. This subset of our adopted market should address cost of living issues and target competitive market position. Further evaluation of our ability to attract and retain highly qualified candidates will be ongoing; o Maintain current salary structure and increase the span of our scale; and o Waive policy to allow reclassification increases to be phased in over a two year period. 3. Discussion: Health/Dental Insurance Contract 2004- 2005. APPROVED the following recommendations from the HealthCare Executive Committee: o Medical: Continue the medical care contract.for 2004-2005 with Southern Health. The recommended budgeted Board contribution for health coverage is $5,232 for the 2004-2005 plan year. The plan options and premiums are indicated in the attachments. o Dental: Continue the dental contract for 2004-2005 with Delta Dental of Virginia. The Board contribution for the dental plan for 2004-2005 is budgeted at $180 annually for full-time employees. 4. Matters not Listed on the Agenda. At 5:00 p.m., the Board went into closed session under subsection (1) to consider the appointment of a department head. 1. Call to Order. · Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., by the ASSIGN MENT Kimberly Suyes: Proceed as directed. -Page 1- Chairman. All BOS members were present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Georgina Smith. Non Agenda: Certified Closed Session. At 6:00 p.m. the Board certified the dosed session. 4. From the Public: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. · Bill Puso, representing residents of Allen Road, asked that they be considered as the small preject for the pilot Rural Rusctic Roads program. Goetz Hardtmann, a resident of Allen Road. Also asked that the road be considered for the pilot Rural Rustic Road program. · Liz Palmer, representing the League of the Women's Voters, provided the Board with a copy of the County's Comprehensive Plan on CD, and a copy of the growth areas open space maps and attachments. These documents are important because they tell the Board what the County wants to preserve and why. · Paula Stealy, a resident of Doctors Crossing, said the only way DoctOr's Crossing will get paved is if it is part of the Rural Rustic Road Program. 5. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to Charlie Anson. · PRESENTED, to Charlie Anson. 6.2. Authorize appointment of Assistant Fire Marshall pursuant to Virginia State Code. · APPOINTED, William R. Clark, III as Assistant Fire Marshal with full police powers of the Fire Marshal as authorized in Virginia Code §§ 27-34.2:0 and 27- 36. 6.3 Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Waiver of Income Determination Method. · APPROVED waiver of the aggregate income method for determining income for the Mehdng property and ALLOWED the determination of AG! and purchase price to be based on the weighted average of the partners of the family partnership.. 6.4. Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Preliminary Ranking Order for FY 2003-04 · APPROVED appraisal of the Page, Bieker, Shiftier and Hill properties appraised. 6.5. Authorize Chairman to executive Amendment to the Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from Appalachian Power COmpany. · AUTHORIZED the Chairman to execute the Amendment with APCo on behalf of the Couty. 7. SP-2003-70: Gregory R. Galllihugh-Nextel Partners (Sign #59). · DEFFERED SP-2003-70, until May 5, 2004 at the applicant's request. 8. SP-2003-077, Parking Lot Expansion Ron Martin Appliances (Sign ~36). Ches Goodall: Proceed as directed. Ches Goodail: Proceed as directed. Clerk: Forward signed agreement to the County Attorney's office for distribution. Clerk: Schedule on May 5, 2004 agenda. Advertise the public hearing. Clerk: Set out conditions (Attachment 1). -Page 2- APPROVED, SP-2003-077 by a vote of 6:0, subjected to the 5 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. SP-2003-080. Tower at Pepsi Place (Signs ~40&44). APPROVED, SP-2003-080, by a vote of 5:0, subjected to the 9 conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and amended at the Board meeting. I0. An Ord to amend the Albemarle County Code {}3- 207, Batesville A,qdcultural/Forestal Dist, for the proposed addition of 4 Ps to the Dist. · ADOPTED the ordinance of the addition of 82.75 acres to the Batesville Agricultu~al/Forestal District. 11. Six Year Secondary Road Plan (deferred from March 3, 2004). · APPROVED, the Six Year Secondary Road Priority List with separate priority ranking for Rural Rustic Roads paving and regular paving. ENDORSED, Gilbert Station Road as the pilot project for the Rural Rustic Road Program and Allen road for the small project depending upon available revenues. 8. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on The Agenda. David VVyant · He asked staff if he could get maps of the Crozet Master Plan for the residents. Ken Boyd · Discussed scheduling a joint Board and City Council transportation planning meeting on current road issues. 24. Adjoum. · The meeting was adjourned at 7:28 p.m. Clerk: Set out conditions (Attachment 1). Clerk: Forward adopted ordinance to the County Attorney's office for inclusion in update of County Code. Send letters to property owners acknowledging support of district. (Attachment 2), /gas Attachment 1 - Conditions of Approval Attachment 2 - Ordinance, Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District. -Page 3- ATTACHMENT t CONDITIONS SP-2003-077. Parkin,q Lot Expansion Ron Martin Appliances (Siqn #36). Public headng on a request to allow stand alone parking in accord w/Sec 24.2.2 (12) of the Zoning Ord. TM 45C, P 02-1B contains .77 acs. Znd HC. Loc on Rt 1417 (Woodbmok Dr), approx .1 mile from intersec of Woodbrook Dr & Rt 29N (Seminole Trail). Rio Dist. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: 1. A final site plan shall be submitted for approval, which shall be in general accord with the revised plan that shows improvements on Tax Ma p 45C Pame102-1 B, dated January 28, 2004; 2. At least one (1) sign shall be posted in the parking area that identifies the use as parking for the adjacent cemmemial use only (Tax Map 45C Parcel 02-1A & 02-1), with size and location of the sign to be determined and approved by staff; 3. The parking area shall be used for customer parking only, which shall be stated on the sign per condition ~2. Delivery and other commemial vehicles shall not be parked or stored in the parking area for loading, unloading or any other purpose; 4. Additional landscaping shall be installed and maintained within the twenty (20') foot buffer, as necessary to provide screening to complete a double staggared row of evergreen trees along the east side of the property; and 5. A second 10'x10' concrete dumpster pad shall be constructed adjacent to the 10'x10' concrete dumpster pad area shown on the plan dated January 28, 2004. The resulting 10'x20' dumpster area shall be screened with a three (3) sided opaque fence and additional landscaping per the direction of staff. SP-2003-080, Tower at Pepsi Place (Si,qns #40&44). Public hearing on a request to allow construction of 60-foot tall tower equipped w/six antennas & two grid-styled microwave antennas for enhanced radio broadcasting in accord w/Sec 22.2.2(2) of the Zoning Ord. TM 61W, Sec 2, P 2A, contains 1.32 acs. Znd C-1. Loc at intersec of Rt 866 (Greenbrier Dr) & Rt 1340 (Pepsi Place), approx 1 mile E Rt 29N. Rio Dist. The facility shall be designed, constructed and maintained as follows: The tower shall be located and built as shown in the applicant's submittal packet entitled Tower 1150 Pepsi Place, initialed 1/28/04 and included as Attachment B; Pdor to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site drawings showing the proposed construction of the tower. These plans shall include to-scale elevations showing the tower profile and the location of each antenna. Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed; The tower structure shall not exceed sixty (60) feet in height; The width of each side of the tower shall not exceed thirty-six (36) inches at its base, and twenty- two (22) inches at the top; Attachments shall be shall be limited to three (3) dish antennas not to exceed six (6) feet in diameter and the six (6) antennas detailed in the applicant's submittal packet included as Attachment B; No additional antennas that support services other than radio broadcasting shall be attached to extend above a total height of sixty (60) feet on the tower; -Page4- The tower, antennas, dishes and all other equipment attached above the mol of the existing building shall be painted a non-reflective, dull brown color that reduces its contrast with the sky and blends with the backdrop of trees; No guy wires shall be permitted; and The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date its use for radio broadcasting services is discontinued. -P~e5- Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO. 04-3(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 3-207, Batesville AgricultUral and Forestal District, as follows: ARTICLE IL DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DMSION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District. The distdct known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 70, parcel 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 24B, 24C, 24Cl, 26, 26A, 26B, 26B1, 26B2, 26C, 27A; tax map 84, parcel 35A; tax map 85, parcels 3, 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax map 85A, parcel 1. This district, created on May 2, 1990 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19, 2000, shall next be reviewed prior to May 2, 2010. (Code 1988, § 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 01-3(2), 7-11-01; Ord. 04-3(1), 3-17-04) -Page 6- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Compensation Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of proposed recommendations to address market competitiveness of identified positions that are recruited for on a regional/national level. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Suyes, Gerome AGENDA DATE: Mamh 11, 2004 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At the June 26, 2003 Joint Board meeting, the Joint Boards supported staff's recommendation to "collect and analyze data over the summer, along with the annual salary review and bring a recommendation on the appropriate methodology for determining market competitiveness back to the Boards." Several recent issues have emphasized the difficulties of attracting and retaining a highly qualified workfome. These difficulties include: · Recent recruitments have resulted in a very small pool of candidates for many positions; · Top candidates have declined offers; The high cost of living in Albemarle is apparent to candidates; · A growing percentage of our workforce is eligible for retirement. · At the November 6, 2003 Joint Board meeting, staff was directed to: 1 ) Consider different markets for different positions 2) Consider cost of living This report addresses those issues, presents the options that were evaluated and provides recommendations. DISCUSSION: As competitive salaries are critical for Albemarle County to attract and retain high performing employees, staff has evaluated alternatives and is presenting recommendations in response to the Board's direction to address these issues. This report outlines the analysis of those options to include: · Market/Market Positioning-Staff evaluated a variety of methodologies to include: peer-ranking, setting a different target of our adopted market, and selecting a peer group of localities from our adopted market based on similar size, cost of living and student enrollment. · Implementation methodologies-Staff reviewed several options to implement the desired market target to include creating a separate administratodmanagement scale, expanding the range spread of our current scale and adding paygrades to current classified/administrative salary. RECOMMENDATIONS: These recommendations are presented to the Boards for their consideration. It is noted that all final funding is subject to, and based upon, available revenue. Implementation strategies are being developed within allocations available within each respective budget. AGENDA TITLE: Albemarle County Compensation Report March 17, 2004 Page 2 of 2 1. For positions that are recruited on a regional/national level, identify competitive market as the identified localities within our adopted market that we typically recruit against for those positions. This subset of our adopted market shOuld address cost of living Issues and target competitive market position. Further evaluation of our ability to attract and retain highly qualified candidates will be ongoing. 2. Maintain current salary structure and increase the span of our scale. 3. Waive policy to allow reclassification increases to be phased in over a two year period 04.039 Albemarle County Compensation Report - March 2004 Corn pensation BackRround At the June 26, 2003 Joint Board meeting, the Joint Boards supported staff's recommendation to "collect and analyze data over the summer, along with the annual salary review and bring a recommendation on the appropriate methodology for determining market competitiveness back to the Boards." Several recent issues have emphasized the difficulties of attracting and retaining a highly qualified workforce. These difficulties include: · Recent recruitments have resulted in a very small pool of candidates for many positions; · Top candidates have declined offers; · The high cost of living in Albemarle is apparent to candidates; · A growing percentage of our workforce is eligible for retirement. The Joint Board adopted compensation strategy for market competitiveness appears to be successful in recruiting and retaining positions recruited primarily from our local market. Positions for which we recruit outside of our local market appear to have significant competitiveness issues. At the November 6, 2003 Joint Board meeting, staff was directed to: 1) Consider different markets for different positions Our adopted market may adequately represent our competition for locally recruited positions, but is not competitive for positions recruited in a wider geographic market. These positions include directors, principals, and other management-level or professional-level positions. Recently, top candidates with significant proven experience have rejected offers due to uncompetitive salary offers. 2) Consider cost of livinq The Charlottesville/Albemarle area has a high cost of living. Recruiting employees from outside our geographic area is difficult at current salary levels. Over the past year, final candidates for teaching positions and management positions have declined offers, often based on lack of affordable housing when compared to salary. The Charlottesville nd Metropolitan StatiStical Area (MSA) has the 2 highest cost of living of the eight largest urban areas in Virginia. Charlottesville MSA is second only to Northern Virginia and the cost of housing (both rental and ownership) is considerably higher than all surrounding areas. Staff has evaluated alternatives and is presenting options in response to the Board's direction to address these issues. As competitive salaries are critical for Albemarle County to attract and retain high performing employees, staff has evaluated several options that could be implemented in the short-term. Market/Market Positioning The first issue is to determine our market and the desired positioning, relative to the market. Staff evaluated a variety of methodologies to include: 1) Peer-ranking in which a national or regional peer group is identified as our market. This peer group would consist of similar county populations, student enrollments, and cost of living to Albemarle. · This option would require that additional data be collected annually, and may be difficult to communicate and administer. · Few or no localities in our current market would be in the peer group. · Consensus could not be reached on such a different market methodology within the timeframe needed to meet competitive pressures. 2) Set a different target of our adopted market, such as the top quartile. · This option requires no additional data collection, but does not specifically address the high cost of living. 3) · This option could be accomplished within the appropriate timeframe. Select a peer group of localities from our adopted market, based on similar size, cost of living and student enrollment. · This option takes into consideration the cost of living and is based on our current market so requires no additional data collection. · This option could be accomplished within the appropriate timeframe. Recommendations (market): Staff recommends selecting identified localities from our adopted market to be used as the competitive market for senior level administrative/mana.qement positions, as these are the areas from which we recruit. To remain consistent with Board adopted strategy, the recommended target is the median of that market. All localities are within the wider competitive market and include: Hanover County, Loudoun County, City of Charlottesville, Prince William County, Spotsylvania County, Chesterfield County, City of Chesapeake, James City County, and City of Roanoke. These localities represent areas that are in MSAs, both above and below Albemarle. Two of the localities, Prince William and Loudoun, are in the Northern Virginia MSA, which is approximately 10% above Albemarle County in cost-of-living. Three of the localities, Chesapeake, Chesterfield and James City County, are in the Tidewater MSA, which is approximately 10% below Albemarle in cost-of-living. Based on targeting the median of these localities, our senior level administrative/management position paygrades are below market from 9.8% to 20.0%. (Attachment #1 ) Implementation methodologies Staff reviewed several options to implement the desired market target to include: 1) Create separate administrator/management scale. · This requires additional time in administration and communication and would require that a new compensation policy be created. In addition, creating a separate scale may result in morale issues from other staff. · This process could not be accomplished within an appropriate timeframe. 2) Expand the range spread of our current scale. · This impacts ail classified employees by increasing the midpoint at all paygrades. · This would not specifically target positions which we recruit regionally or nationally. · Expanding the ranges of the current scale would not fully address competitiveness issues. · Expanding the ranges would not allow for further adjustment to meet market needs. 3) Add paygrades to current classified/administrative salary schedule. · Increasing the number of paygrades would allow for competitive placement of positions on our pay plan. · Continuing with one salary structure is advantageous for ease of communication and administration. · This would address competitive scales for the purpose of new hiring. · Placement of positions would be relative to market information. · Structure would allow for future ability to address competitive issues. Recommendations (structural): Staff recommends that we add pay.qrades to current classified/administrative salary schedule. (Attachment #2) Our current structure has 25 paygrades, a 60% spread between minimum and maximum and 7.5% between paygrades. The structure should be increased to include additional paygrades up to 30. The positions identified as recruited beyond our local market include: · 22 School Division positions · 22 Local Government positions 2 These positions are generally in paygrade 20 and above, but there may be several exceptions. Recommendations (implementation): In accordance with School Board policy GCBA, and County of Albemarle Policy P-60, Salary Administration and Position Classification "When an employee is reclassified from one range into a higher range, the employee will receive 7.5% pay rate increase for reclassification resulting in a one paygrade increase and a 10% increase for reclassification resulting in a two or more paygrade increase". Staff recommends that the implementation be phased in over two years, with the increase calculated from the midpoint of the pay,qrade. This would involve a waiving of current policy. However, staff recommends the following implementation strategy: · Two or more paygrade reclassifications-employees to receive 5% of midpoint effective, July 1, 2004 and 5% of midpoint, effective July 1, 2005. This amount is one-half the required amount (10%) as stated in policy. · One paygrade reclassifications- employees to receive 3.75% of midpoint effective, July t, 2004 and 3.75% of midpoint, effective July 1, 2005. This amount is one-half the required amount (7.5%) as stated in policy. Summary of all recommendations: These recommendations are presented to the Boards for their consideration. It is noted that all final funding is subject to, and based upon, available revenue. Implementation strategies are being developed within allocations available within each respective budget. 1. For positions that are recruited on a regional/national level, identify competitive market as the identified localities within our adopted market that we typically recruit against for those positions. This subset of our adopted market should address cost of living issues and target competitive market position. Further evaluation of our ability to attract and retain highly qualified candidates will be ongoing. 2. Maintain current salary structure and increase the span of our scale. 3. Waive policy to allow reclassification increases to be phased in over a two year period. 0 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Health/Dental Insurance Contract 2004-2005 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of the proposed 2004-2005 health and dental contracts, coverage and proposed rate structure. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Suyes, Gerome AGENDA DATE: March 11,2004 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: Yes ~ ! Attached is a memo from the Health Care Executive Committee (HCEC) to the County Executive and Superintendent, which outlines the current year's process and recommendations for Health and Dental Insurance. Our claims experience and the changes in the market place continue to be the major factors in developing these committee recommendations. DISCUSSION: The County's Health Care Executive Committee has worked with Tom MacKay, Palmer & Cay consultant, to develop recommendations for the 2004-2005 medical and dental programs effective October 1, 2004. The committee is recommending continuing with the Southern Health three Point-of-Service Plans to address the rising trend in health claim costs. All three plans have the same benefit coverage, although the premiums, co-pays and deductibles are different. The report updates information on the reserve balances and provides attached charts that outline the different plans and proposed rate structures. The report proposes a decrease in the Board's annual contribution over what was budgeted for the FY04-05 medical plan, from $5,345 to $5,232 and maintains the budgeted annual amount of $180 for FY04-05 dental plan. The committee is recommending continuing the Delta Dental as a fully insured plan with two options for coverage. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the HealthCare Executive Committee recommendations noted in the attached report. Medical: Continue the medical care contract for 2004-2005 with Southern Health. The recommended budgeted Board contribution for health coverage is $5,232 for the 2004-2005 plan year. The plan options and premiums are indicated in the attachments. Dental: Continue the dental contract for 2004-2005 with Delta Dental of Virginia. The Board contribution for the dental plan for 2004-2005 is budgeted at $180 annually for full-time employees. 04.040 MEMORANDUM To: Robert W. Tucker Jr., County Executive Kevin C. Castner, Superintendent From: HealthCare Executive Committee RE: 2004-2005 Health Insurance Programs Date: March 11, 2004 Each year the HealthCare Executive Committee reviews our current medical and dental plans and makes recommendations on the plans for the following year. This year the Committee is proposing that we continue with our current vendors with plans and employee premiums as outlined in this report. The HealthCare Executive Committee (HCEC) has been working with Mr. Tom Mackay, our benefits consultant with Palmer & Cay, to review our current plans, our claims experience, and claim projections in order to make recommendations on the medical and dental plans for next year and the respective funding of those plans. The goals of the HCEC in developing our recommendations for the 2004-2005 medical plan are to: · maintain our current benefit design · continue to offer affordable options · build up the reserves to approximately 15% of total plan costs · encourage movement of members from the high plan to the other options as our high option plan has a rich plan design and may not be offered by insurers in the future, and · maintain our competitive position for benefits In view of the continued escalation in the cost of health care throughout the country, the HCEC is proposing to continue the three different medical plans based on the budgeted Board contribution. Offering three plans recognizes the realities of the changes in medical insurance costs and gives employees an opportunity to choose between different plans and different premiums. An employee may choose to select a plan that will best meet their needs. Background: FY02-03 Plan Year (October through September) We experienced significant increases in medical claims for our self-insured plan in the 2001-2002 year and the 2002-2003 year. In January 2003, the Boards approved a mid- year increase in employee premiums to ensure the medical plan for 2002-2003 was fully funded. This increase was necessitated due to actual claims running higher than projected and a possibility of depleting the medical reserves. This mid-year adjustment and a decrease in high claims in the final months of the plan year, resulted in adequate medical reserves at the end of the plan year. FY 03-04 Current Plan Year To provide employees options, better meet individual needs, and offer affordable health care choices, three plans with differences in deductibles, co-pays, and premiums were offered this plan year. To accommodate the needs of our workforce and have premiums more accurately reflect claims, a new coverage level of employee plus children was also introduced. The three plans are: 1) High Option- benefit design did not change yet premiums were increased 2) Middle option- changed benefit design to higher coinsurance, yet maintained employee premiums close to the current level 3) Low Option-changed benefit design to higher coinsurance and copays but reduced employee premiums compared to the current levels The majority of employees (94%) opted to pay higher premiums and remain with the high plan. Staff attributes this partially to the enrollment process, which required no action to change from the current plan to the high plan, but required employees to complete a form to select the middle or Iow plan. Claims Monthly claims for 2003-2004 are in line with projections. However, higher claims for several months can quickly change long term projections. Due to the potential volatility of claims, staff monitors the claims experience on a monthly basis. The following chart illustrates our claims and enrollment history. Medical Claims History 1999-2005 (projected) $17,000,OO0 $15,000,000 $13,000,000 $11,000,000 $9,000,000 $7,000,000 $5,000,000 $3,000,000 $1,000,000 I[]Claims $7,438,897 $13,854,796 $11,441,484 $10,127,810 $7,973,344 2000-2001 $15,675,248 1999-2000 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004* 2004-2005* $7,438,897 $7,973,344 $10,127,810 $11,441,484 $13,854,796 $15,675,248 Average 2, 333 2,396 2,493 2, 553 2, 667 2, 667 ~,~oltmcnt Costs Costs in medical care, as well as prescriptions, continue to rise faster than other costs. Most employers across the county are experiencing 15% to 25% increases with some having increases over 40%. Albemarle County's medical plan has experienced increases between 5.4% and 28.5% over the past six years. These increases reflect the rising cost of medical services, reinsurance and increases in enrollment. Our medical claims for this year are projected to increase 16%, which ~s consistent with current medical trends. Reserves As our medical plan is self-insured, the County is responsible for all claims and our projections are based on the best historical and trend analysis information at the time. claims exceed our revenue collections the difference is paid from our reserves. Likewise, if revenue exceeds claims the difference is added back to our reserves. Medical reserves serve two purposes. First, to cover any difference between claims paid, but not covered by the revenues (employee premiums collected & Board contributions). Second, to cover Incurred-But-Not-Paid claims in the event the County stopped offering a medical plan. To meet these two purposes, a reserve of 15% of tota claims is recommended. We have had adequate reserves at the end of each plan-year except for 2001-2002. Medical Reserve Account as of October 1St Start of year End of year Change 1998-1999 $1,818,539 $1,989,561 $171,022 1999-2000 $1,989,561 $1,981,152 ($8,409) 2000-2001 $1,981,152 $2,361,453 $380,301 2001-2002 $2,361,453 $1,222,455 ($1,138,998) 2002-2003 $1,222,455 $1,624,044 $401,589 2003-2004 $1,624,044 $2,271,098( projected) $647,054 Competitiveness Offering a competitive medical plan that balances the benefit design against the cost to fund the program is a major consideration each year. The current medical benefit design is competitive. The Health Care Executive Committee reviewed benchmark public and private data, which illustrates that our plan design remains competitive in terms of office copay, and slightly above market in prescription drug copays and coinsurance. Premiums The benchmark data indicated that the premiums compare as follows: · Employee cost for individual coverage under any of our three options is Iow · Family cost is high for the high option plan, in line for middle option, and Iow for the Iow option Benchmark Data Individual Premium · 2003 Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation data shows: o Average employee premium of $43 per month for all organizations with over 200 em ployees nationally o Average employee premium of $39 per month for all organizations with in the southern region · 2002 Mercer National Survey (data trended 13.5% to update to 2003) shows: o Average employee premium of $70 per month for all organizations with 1000-4999 em ployees nationally o Average employee premium of $47 per month for governments nationally o Average employee premium of $74 per month for all organizations in the southern region 4 Albemarle Health Plan Benchmarks versus 2003 Kaiser and 2002 Mercer Surveys Employee Costs (Individual) POS $8O $70 $60 $5O $4O $3O $2O $10 $0 $43 $39 $70 $74 $32 $26 Kaiser Survey Mercer Survey Albemarle-Hi/Mi/Lo [] Individual Size [] Individual Industry [] Region Family Premium · 2003 Henry J Kaiser Family Foundation data shows: o Average family premium of $187 per month for all organizations with over 200 employees nationally o Average family premium of $244 per month for all organizations with in the southern region · 2002 Mercer National Survey (data trended 13.5% to update to 2003) shows: o Average family premium of $252 per month for all organizations with 1000-4999 employees nationally o Average family premium of $243 per month for governments nationally o Average family premium of $295 per month for all organizations in the southern region 325 275 225 175 125 $75 $25 $187 $244 Employee Costs (Family) POS $295 $252 $243 $298 Kaiser Survey Mercer Survey Albemarle-Hi/M i/Lo []Family Size []Family Industry VIRegion The benchmark data, while not compared with our adopted market, indicate that our health plan design and premium amounts are currently achieving our targeted benefits strategy, to be slightly above market. Additionally, as our high option plan is rich in terms of no cost sharing for many services, the HCEC recognizes that this plan may not be offered by 'nsurers in the future. In anticipation of this, the rates for the Iow and middle plan will not be increased in an effort to drive some movement of other employees into these other options. While the cost to Albemarle County is the same for all plans, the majority of employees have elected to continue in the high option plan. The monthly Board contribution and premiums have increased. Attachment fiB illustrates all premium amounts. The following illustrates the increase in premiums to employees in the High Plan: Coverage level Current Projected Employee Premium Premium Dollar Increase Board Employee Board Employee Employee $384.00 $32.00 $436.00 $34.00 $2.00 Em ployee+Child $384.00 $69.00 $436.00 $73.00 $4.00 Employee+Children $384.00 $223.00 $436.00 $237.00 $14.00 Employee+Spouse $384.00 $223.00 $436.00 $237.00 $14.00 Em ployee+ Family $384.00 $298.00 $436.00 $317.00 $19.00 Recommendations: The HCEC considered a number of options in offering a medical plan(s) that balances the needs of employees with the fiscal realities of funding the plan(s), in light of the continuing escalation in costs for medical care. The Committee also reviewed the dental plan. Medical Plan: 1. Continue to offer three different plans through Southern Health Services Inc: a. All three plans are Point-Of-Service Plans with the same benefit coverage b. There are differences in cost sharing (co-pays, co-insurance, out-of- pocket maximums, deductibles) and employee premium requirements c. The benefit summary is shown at Attachment A 2. Reduce the budgeted increase in Board contribution from $5,345 to $5,232 for the new plan-year starting October 1st 3. Recognizing that in the future health care market, the high plan may not be offered by insurers and set premiums to encourage movement into the middle and Iow plan, yet maintain affordable options 4. Set full-time employee premiums at the rates shown in Attachment B 5. Retain a self-insured medical plan with Specific-Claim-Stop-Loss insurance to limit our liability against any single large claim 6. Staff monitor claims experience and provide a status report at the end of the current plan year (September 30, 2004). Staff will provide interim reports if warranted Dental Plan: 1. Continue the contract with Delta Dental of Virginia as a fully insured plan 2. Delta Denial's rate increase is capped at 7.5%, as negotiated two year's ago in the RFP process 3. Continue to offer the Basic and High Options with no change in benefit design 4. Retain the budgeted increase of $20 per participant in Annual Board contribution from $160.00 to $180.00 for the new plan year starting October 1st 5. Approve the employee premiums as shown Attachment B Attachments: A- Proposed Medical Plan Design for 2004-2005 B - Proposed Employee Premiums for Medical and Dental Plans for 2004-2005 HealthCare Executive Committee: Roxanne White, Albemarle County Melvin Breeden, Albemarle County Kimberly Suyes, Albemarle County & Schools Bill Brent, Albemarle County Service Authority Lorna Gerome, Albemarle County & Schools Steele Howen, Albemarle Schools Jackson Zimmermann, Albemarle Schools Joe Johnson, CATEC Tom Robinson, Regional Jail Attachment A Attachment B ALBEMARLE COUNTY Proposed Insurance Monthly Premiums For FY 2004-2005 (Full-time Employee Rates) Medical Plans October 1, 2004 Current Proposed Employee Employee Percent Premium Premium Increase/(Decrease) Increase/Decrease Hi,qh Plan Employee $32.00 $34.00 $2.00 6.3% Employee+Child $69.00 $73.00 $4.00 5.8% Employee+Children $223.00 $237.00 $14.00 6.3% Employee+Spouse $223.00 $237.00 $14.00 6.3% Employee+Family $298.00 $317.00 $19.00 6.4% Middle Plan Employee $26.00 $26.00 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Child $56.00 $56.00 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Children $180.00 $180.00 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Spouse $180.00 $180.00 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Family $239.00 $239.00 $0.00 0.0% Low Plan Employee $8.00 $8.00 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Child $35.00 $35.00 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Children $112.00 $112.00 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Spouse $112.00 $112.00 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Family $152.00 $152.00 $0.00 0.0% Dental Plans October 1, 2004 Current Proposed Employee Employee Percent Premium Premium Increase/(Decrease) Increase/Decrease High Option Employee $14.18 $14.18 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Child $33.31 $33.31 $0.00 0.0% Employee+ Spouse $33.31 $33.31 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Family $63.84 $63.84 $0.00 0.0% Low Option Employee $3.46 $3.46 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Child $15.15 $15.15 · $0.00 0.0% Employee+Spouse $15.15 $15.15 $0.00 0.0% Employee+Family $38.41 $38.41 $0.00 0.0% 3/17/2004 Alb_emarle__6ounht Joint Board Compensation and Medical Report and Recommendations March 2004 Agenda Review November 6 Joint Board meeting Recent issues · Difficulties recruiting outside of tho local market · C'viile. MSA- Higll cost of living Provide recornmendations Review medical plan Provide recommendations 3/17/2004 Joint..Board Adopted. Compensation and Benefits Strategy "'i.:'! ..i: Ado - Countie~'~ S'of similar size within the state of - ,~ "ih. the same geographic, r~gion'of' - At market levels (!.e.i 'lOOth percentile of market, median) Benefits ~ Compensation Strategy .., Survey ,,,- ,,... ~,. Market ,.Analyze data-" · ,,;' .......... ' : do we lead; // ", ........................ · ...... :. lag, or meet / Get '. '..,, market? ,., % '" ... '.'..i' ii;;' ;.. Worlda~work .............. :x projections /Project'scale · ': & salary \ increases 2 3/17/2004 Benefits Strategy Target slightly above market levels (i.e., ~105th percentile) Medical Insurance benefit design and premiums are the strength in benefit plan FY 04/05 Planning Projections Based on Joint Board Adopted Methodology BOard Approved Staff Recommendations' ,, CLASSIFIED , Project 3% Merit Pool -based on Worldatwork projected 3.3%, and adjusted for salary 0.3% above market , Project 2% classified salary scale adjustment based on survey data of below market 1.1 % and projecting scale increase in adopted market Currently strategy is effective in recruiting and retaining classified positions for which we recruit locally 3 3/17/2004 Recent Issues Small pool of candidates for positions not recruited locally Top candidates declining offers Recognized high cost of living in area by candidates Difficulty attracting and retaining qualified candidates Increasing percentage of workforce eligible for retirement November 6 Board Direction Consider different markets for different positions Identify targeted positions (both government and school) for which we recruit outside of our adopted market and evaluate pay to be rnore corn petitive Evaluate options to address cost of living issues 4 3/17/2004 Determine Market/Market Positioning or Peer Ranking Different target of adopted market, such as top quadile Peer group from adopted market based on similarities, to include cost of living, and localities we recruit from Market Recommendation Select identified localities from adopted market: ':.ocalities-/~lSA Cost of living Percentage compared to C'ville · Spct~-ylv~nie · II Prince :.' YY H~rmvor 0 · Ch~s~e~ield "6hOS~l~6~kc ,... Jam~s City County -t5 4~ ........... ~-.~ '~ Roal?o~e -20 Target salaries at peer market median 3/17/2004 Market Recommendation Considers cost of living Based on adopted market No additional data collection Based on this data, salaries are below market from 9.8% to 20.0% Determine Structural Strategy or · ..,, Separate administrator/management scale :,Expand range spread of current scale or ,Add paygrades to current scale 12 d 3 / 17/2004 Structure Recommendation Add paygrades to current scale · , Simple to administer and communicate ~ Allows competitive salary for new hires ,~ Allows competitive salary placement for current positions Example , Position A  ?',.. .. ... ..: :.. .: ....... ...... f:~}i!'i'.' ~!~:'!:~ F,'/' ' :'..':'.' ~.~s~..' .".' . ':' ';'.' ,,::.,:.-:,;~'.-.. ...... ..-~..~,,-.::~.'--~.~ 3/17/2004 Recommended Implementation Strategy Two year phase-in Increase calculated from midpoint as follows: e Two or more paygrade reclassifications 5% midpoint, 7/1/04 5% midpoint, 7/1/05 · One paygrade reclassification 3.75% midpoint, 7/1/04 · 3.75% midpoint, 7/1/05 Summary of . recommendations For Positions recruited on regional/national level: · Identify market as nine localities from adopted rnarket that we recruit against and takes into consideration cost of living · Maintain current salary structure and increase span · Waive policy to allow 2 year phase-in for increases 8 3/17/2004 Benefits Strategy Target slightly above market levels (i.e., 105th percentile) Medical Insurance benefit design and premiums are strength in benefit plan 17 Medical Objectives Current Status Market Competitiveness- Benchmarking Recommendations !8 9 3/17/2004 Objectives Maintain current plan design Offer affordable options Maintain reserves @ 15% Encourage movement to other options Market competitiveness Employee cost sharing Medical Current Status Southern Health ~ Three Point of Service Plans High Option Middle Option Low Options 2004.-2005 budget development · Board Contribution-reduce budgeted contribution from $5,345 to $5.232 t0 3/17/2004 $17,000.000 $t5,000,000 $t3,000.000 $11,000,000 $9.000.000 $7,eOO,O00 $5,000,000 $3,000,000 $7,438,897 Claims $7,973,344 $13,854,796 $t5,675,248 2,333 2,390 2,493 2.553 2.007 2,067 2,1 Reserves Medical Reserve Accounl as el October Start of year 'End il y~ar Change 1UO.q- 1 !lC. FJ· 51.81 ~ .539 $1,9Rt~,551 ~ 171,022 1 ~90-20~:) S 1 ,~.89,5~ ~ S ~ .981, ~ ~ (SE.40~)) 2C~ 2001 ~I,991,~ ~2.351.4~ S360,3G~ 2001-2002 ~2,35~ .453 gf,222.45~ {S1 ,'r 3U,[:~., 20C2-2003 S1.222.45S S1,624.0,:z ~ 40 i .5:Y..' 2003-?004 ~ 1.624,044 52,271.0['[~[ p~Lec:~d) SC~7,U~ 11 3/17/2004 Market Compet!tiveness Benchmark~ng The premiums compare as follows; e Employee cost for individual coverage under any of our three options is Iow e, Family cost is high for the high option plan, in line for the middle option and Iow for the Iow options 23 Market Compet!tiveness Benchmark~ng Plan Design is competitve in terms of: · Office copay Plan Design is slightly above market in terms of: · Prescription copay · Coinsurance 12 3/17/2004 Future Trends High option plan may not be offered by insurers Wellness intiatives · Short-term-EAP and Southern Health · Long-term-analysis Dual Ol.~t:ion 'Dcnta'] Plan ..... Delta Dental $25/S75 deductible 100% Preventive 80% Basic 0% Major $50/S150 deductible 100% Preventive 80% Basic 50% Major 13 3/17/2004 Dental Delta Dental -fully insured plan Dual options Rate increase capped at 7.5% Annual Board contribution of $180 (from $160) 27 Medical and Dental Recommendations Medical ... 3 POS Southern Health Plans , Annual Board contribution-S5,232 Employee cost share premiums in high option plan Dental Delta Dental Dual option , Annual Board contribution $180 14 3/17/2004 Summary Recommendations for positions reCruited for on regional/natiOnal level Recommendations on Medical and Dental Plans for 2004-2005 2004 29 15 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Appointment of Assistant Fire Marshal SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize appointment of Assistant Fire Marshal pursuant to Virginia Code STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Eggleston AGENDA DATE: March 17, 2004 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: No , Virginia Code § 27-36 provides that the Board may appoint one or more assistant fire marshals that may in the absence of the Fire Marshal carry out his duties and responsibilities. In addition, Virginia Code § 27-34.2:1 provides that in addition to such other duties as may be prescribed by law, the governing body may authorize an assistant fire marshal to have the same police powers as a sheriff, police officer or other law enforcement officer and the authority to investigate and prosecute certain designated offenses. STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Make the County a safe and healthy community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. DISCUSSION: The appointment of William R. Clark, III, who is currently a Fire Prevention Inspectodlnvestigator, as an Assistant Fire Marshal is necessary in order for him to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Fire Marshal's office. He has satisfactorily completed the required training for fire marshals, exercising police powers as required by the Virginia State Department of Fire Programs. The Board has previously authorized assistant fire marshals to exercise police powers. RECOMMENDATION: Appoint William R. Clark, III as Assistant Fire Marshal with full police powers of the Fire Ma rshal as authorized in Virginia Code §§ 27-34.2:0 and 27-36. 04.035 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: ma w. Carey, March 19, 2004 Appointment of Assistant Fire Marshal At its meeting on March 17, 2004, the Board of Supervisors appointed William R. Clark, I~' as Assistant Fire Marshal with full powers of the Fire Marshal as authorized in Wrginia Code Sections 27-34.2:0 and 27-36. Thomas Foley Larry Davis COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Acq uisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Waiver of Income Determination Method SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval to waive a requirement in the ACE ordinance that makes income determination subject to aggregate AGI instead of weighted AGI STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish, Goodall AGENDA DATE: March t7, 2004 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X ATTACHMENT: REVIEWED BY: INFORMATION: IN FORMATION: Yes / BACKGROUND: Per the Executive Summary of August 13th, 2003, the Board of Supervisors approved the appraisals of six (6) properties from the ACE applicant pool for FY 2002-03. One of these appraisals was for the 611.172 acre Mehring Family Partnership property, located on the east flank of Castle Rock Mountain approximately 3 miles west of North Garden. Based on the ranking evaluation criteria, it is the highest ranked property in the applicant pool and has tourism value because 46 acres of land lie within a mountain "ridge area boundary". Before the County can extend the owner an "Invitation to Offer to Sell", staff must determine the purchase price, which is calculated by multiplying the appraised value by the applicable percentage of appraised value - as set forth in the income grid on page 9 of the ACE ordinance (see Attachment "A"). In the case of a family partnership, such as the Mehrings, "the average adjusted gross income shall be based on the a.q~lre~,ate annual adjusted gross income of the partners." At its January 14~h meeting, the Board of Supervisors approved ~taff's recommendation to waive this approach when determining adjusted gross income for the Henley Forest, Inc. property, an "S" corporation. Though the Mehring property is not an "S" corporation, staff believes the existing method (for determining income) again unreasonably lowers the purchase price of the easement for the Mehrings. AUTHORITY: As per section A. 1-110(I) of the ACE ordinance, the Board of Supervisors may waive or extend any requirement or deadline if, for good cause, it is shown that circumstances exist which warrant such action. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 2.1 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character". Goal: 2.2 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources". DISCUSSION: The Mehring property is held in a family partnership consisting of four (4) different couples, each of whom is a direct member of the Mehring family. Under partnership accounting rules, income taxes are paid by the individual partners of the partnership rather than by the partnership as a whole. In addition, all profits and losses are allocated according to each partner's proportionate share of the partnership. Under the calculation required by the ACE ordinance, which considers only the aggregate income of all the owners, the Mehrings would receive only 4% of appraised value because their aggregate income exceeds $200,001 (by a substantial margin). Though the aggregate income approach may be appropriate in some cases of multi-person ownership, it is the opinion of staff and the ACE Committee that this approach would unfaidy under value the easement for the Mehrings, whose average annual income should earn them 88% of appraised value. The Board of Supervisors heard a similar AGENDA TITLE: Acquition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Waiver of Income Determination Method March 17, 2004 Page 2 of 2 case on January 14, 2004 when they approved staff's recommendation to waive the aggregate income approach (when determining adjusted gross income) for the Henley Forest, Inc. property. Though the Mehring property is not an "S" corporation, staff believes the existing method (for determining income) raises similar issues when applied to Mehring. One of the original objectives of the ACE program was to give landowners of modest means a financial incentive for placing their property under easement since current tax laws provide little or no benefit from donating an easement. Since the partnership's net profit and taxable income is not based on the shareholder's aggregate income, staff believes it would be inconsistent to base the determination of {easement) purchase price on the partner's aggregate ~ncome. If each of the partners of the Mehring Family Partnership have insufficient income to benefit from a donated easement, the purchase of an easement is the only financial incentive available to these landowners of modest means. A more equitable solution would be to use a "weighted average" approach whereby payment is based on a partner's proportionate share or contribution of income (see Attachment "B"). The purchase price of the easement would thus be determined by multiplying the appraised value of the easement ($550,000) by an individual partner's proportionate share of the partnership. The resulting value would then be adjusted according to the income grid. The individual payment for each of the four (4) partners would then be added up to produce the total ACE payment. This approach would follow the accounting standard for family partnerships. Using the weighted average approach, the net ACE payment would be $484,660 or 88% of the total appraised value. Clearly, the Mehring property has significant conservation val.~e. In addition to qualifying for tourism funds because it has 46 acres and more than 7,000 feet of ridgeline within the mountain "ridge area boundary", the property has 6,455 feet of common boundary with another property currently under easement. When clustered with easements on both Highland Orchards Farm and Wingspread Farm, the Mehring easement would create a 2,300 acre contiguous block of protected property that runs from Route 29 (an Entrance Corridor in the Comprehensive Plan) to the peaks of Mill and Castle Rock Mountains. Since this ddgeline is one the highest in Albemarle County (Castle Rock Mountain is 2,340 feet in elevation), it is highly visible from Route 29. In addition, the Mehdng easement will not permit timber harvesting on any land above 1,600 feet elevation and it will create 75 foot wide riparian forest buffers around all major streams. Since development would be restricted to a family division on 55 acres at the bottom of the property, the remaining 556 acres would be forever protected from development and residential construction. This easement would help to preserve the rural character of Albemarle County, conserve and protect biodiversity and wildlife habitats, and provide a permanent wooded buffer to protect the quality of water flowing into the Hardware River. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors waive the aggregate income method for determining income for the Mehring property and allow the determination of AGI and purchase price to be based on the weighted average of the partners of the family partnership as described above and shown on Attachment "B". Using this approach, the purchase price for the Mehring Family Partnership ACE easement would be $484,660. 04.032 Attachment "A" Determining purchase price. The purchase price of a conservation easement shall be calculated by multiplying the appraised value by the applicable percentage of appraised value set forth in the table below. The average annual adjusted gross income shall be based on the aggregate of the annual adjusted gross income of each owner of record and the members of his or her immediate family in each of the three (3) most recent tax years. In the case of a parcel owned by an entity such as a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, trust or estate, the average annual adjusted gross income of the owner shall be based on the aggregate annual adjusted gross incomes of the shareholders, partners, members, grantor, beneficiaries or decedent, as the case may be. Average Annual Adjusted Grosslncome Percentage of Appraised Value $ 0-$50,000 100% $50,001 - $60,000 94% $60,001 - $70,000 88% $70,001 - $80,000 82% $80,001- $90,000 76% $90,001 - $100,000 70% $100,001 - $110,000 64% $110,001- $120,000 58% $120,001 - $130,000 52% $130,001-$140,000 46% $140,001 -$150,000 40% $150,001 - $160,000 34% $160,001- $170,000 28% $170,001 - $180,000 22% $180,001-$190,000 16% $190,001- $200,000 10% $200,001 ormore 4% Income Determination for the Mehring Family Partnership Appraised Value o£Easement = $ 550,000.00 Attachment "B" Owner (%) Mehring, W. (1%) Mehring, W. (33%) Mehring, P, (33%) Kalton (33%) Weighted Average Adjusted Gross Income By Tax Year 1999 2000 2001 $ 86,910 $ 27,241 $ 28,580 $ 44,372 $ 70,346 $ 72,560 $ 65,681 $ 70,327 $ 64,452 $ 72~258 $ 61,923 $ 62,051 Average AGI $ 47,577 $ 62,426 $ 66,820 $ 65,411 $ 64,714 (88%) Owner % Ownership Ownership Value AGI % Appraised Value Payment Mehring, Walter & Sara 1.000% $ 5,500 $ 47,577 100% $ 5,500 Mehring, Walter & ?aula 33.000% 181,500 62,426 88% 159,720 Mehring, Peter & Leslie 33.000% 181,500 66,820 88% 159,720 Kalton, Mike & Margaret 33,000% 181,500 65,411 88% 159,720 Total 100.000% $550,000 $ 64,714 $ 484,660 Aggregate Income Approach: Weighted Income Approach: $ 242,234 (4% of appraised value) $ 64,714 (88% of appraised value) Notes: 1) The Mehring Family Partnership is comprised of four (4) "husband and wife" partners. 2) The calculation of adjusted gross income was based on the joint returns of each couple. 3) Percent (%) Appraised Value is derived from the income grid (Attachment "A") 4) Payment is calculated by multiplying a parmers percent of ownership times the appraised value ($550,000). The resulting value is then multiplied times the applicable "percent of appraised value" based on average adjusted gross income (AGI) from the pervious three years. Example: If Walter & Paula Mehring together own 33% of the partnership, their relative "ownership value" is $181,500 (33% x $550,000). Based on their average AGI from the previous 3 years, this "ownership value" must be multiplied times the applicable "Percent of Appraised Value", as determined by the income grid. Since the Mehrings AGI falls in the 88% bracket (between $60,001-70,000), they should receive 88% of their ownership value or $159,720 (88% x $181,500). COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Preliminary Ranking Order for FY 2003-04 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval to appraise four (4) properties from FY 2003-04 ACE applicant pool STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Goodall AGENDA DATE: March 17, 2004 ACTION: CONSENTAGENDA: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes /,~ ~f""'-'-'-' REVIEWED BY: / The Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Program received eight (8) applications by its September 30, 2003 deadline. Since then, staff has evaluated each of the properties according to the ranking evaluation criteria identified in the ACE ordinance. These objective criteria include: open space resources; threat of conversion to developed use; natural, scenic and cultural resources, and County fund leveraging from outside sources. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff has determined eligibility and a preliminary "final" ranking order for applicants from Round 4 of the ACE program. These results were presented to the ACE Committee on February 25, 2OO4. AUTHORITY: As per sections A. 1-110(G) and A.1-110(H) of the ACE ordinance, the Board of Supervisors shall review the list of ranked parcels submitted by the ACE Committee and identify on which parcels it desires conservation easements. Each conservation easement identified by the Board of Supervisors to be purchased shall be appraised by an independent appraiser chosen by the County. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 2.1 - "Protect and/or preserve the County's rural character". County's natural resources". Goal: 2.2 - "Protect and/or preserve the DISCUSSION: The evaluation of the eight (8) applications (see Attachment "A") from Round 4 shows that seven properties are eligible for ACE funding. The American Environmental Foundation application is ineligible because it did not score the requisite minimum of 15 points from the ranking evaluation criteria. Though the Colombini and two Scruby applications should remain eligible for funding at this time, each has issues that must be resolved before staff can assign a "final" score and rank to these properties. In the meantime, the points awarded for Page, Bieker, Shifflett and Hill are all final and were approved by the ACE Committee at its February 25, 2004 meeting. As a result, the Committee recommended that the Board of Supervisors approve the appraisals of the Page, Bieker, Shifflett and Hill properties. In addition, the Committee recommended that staff continue working with Colombini, Brian Scuby and Tim Scruby to resolves issues affecting the scoring and final ranking of their properties. Once these issues are resolved, staff and the ACE Committee will ask the Board of Supervisors to approve the appraisal of these properties. RECOMMENDATION: The following recommendation is provided for action by the Board of Supervisors: To approve the request of staff and the ACE Committee to have the Page, Bieker, Shiffiett and Hill properties appraised. 04.034 09-03-04P08:££ RCVD Attachment "A" Preliminary Ranking Order for Round 4 ACE Applicants - FY 2003-04 (15 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding) Applicant Tax Map (AcreaRe) Points Travel/Tourism Value* Colombini, Carlo TM 47, Parcel 12A (SmnyPoim) TM 47i Parcel 14 TM 62, Parcel 50F TM 62, Parcel 52 Total Scruby, Brian TM 54, Parcel 72A (Greenwood) TM 55, Parcel 14 TM 69, Parcel 39A 1.000 acres) 65.500 acres) 41.000 acres) 50.398 acres) 157.898 acres) 1.100 acres 43.510 acres 56.889 acres Total (101.499 Page, Henry C. TM 73, Parcel 24 (558. 900 (North Garden) Bieker, Daniel TM 99, Parcel 38A (North Garden) TM 99, Parcel 39 TM 99, Parcel 40 acres acres 75.250 acres 13.190 acres 17.000 acres Total (105.440 Shiffiett, JamesM. TM 7, Parcel 25 ( 61.600 (Boonesville) acres acres Hill, Samuel TM 130, Parcel 17B (145.210 acres (Scottsville) Scruby, Timothy TM 54, Parcel 71 ( 11.556 acres (Greenwood) TM 69, Parcel 59 ( 25.318 acres TM 70, Parcel 33A ( 69.381 acres Total (106.255 acres AEF TM 85, Parcel 40 (182.400 acres (Batesville) 3 7.24 yes 27. 72 yes 25.13 yes 19.57 yes 19.40 yes 17.50 yes 16.40 yes 13.67 yes ~ ineligible Seven (7) Applicants 1,419.202 acres Note: Travel/tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria making certain prope~ eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the following: contains historic resources or lies in a hist~ district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed; adjoins a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic r~v, provides mountaintop protection. Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Property: Colombini, Carlo TM 47, Parcel 12A TM 47, Parcel 14 TM 62, Parcel 50F ( 1.000 acres) ( 65.500 acres) ( 41.000 acres) 0 DR's + 0DR's = 0 DR's 0 DR's + 0 DR's = 0 DR's 3 DR's + 0 DR's = 3 DR's TM 62, Parcel 52 ( 50.398 acres) Total (157.898 acres) Ranking Criteria Determination 5 DR's + 1 DR's = 6 DR's 8 DR's + 1 DR's ~ 9 DR's Source for Points Points Criteria A. 1 >8,000' along existing easements Criteria A.2 157.898 acres Criteria B. 1 no Criteria B.2 no Criteria B.3 7 DR's eliminated Criteria C. 1 no Criteria C.2 no Criteria C.3 459' on SR 649 Criteria C.4 yes - SWMHD Criteria C.5 ~ Criteria C.6 116 acres Criteria C.7 7,200' on NF Rivanna River Criteria C.8 no Criteria C.9 probably Criteria C. 10 n/a Criteria C. 11 no Criteria D. 1 maybe Point Total plats/County overlay maps 16.20 RE Assessor's Office 3.16 landowner 0.00 landowner 0.00 Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50 County overlay maps 0.00 landowner 0.00 County tax map/plats 0.46 PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00 DCR Division of Natural Heritage 5. O0 County Soil Survey 2.32 County overlay maps 3.60 plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00 landowner ~ County Engineering Department 0.00 County overlay maps 0.00 TNC/spin¥ mussell. ~ 37.24+points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR ~ State Road CE = Conservation Easement SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Scruby, Brian G. Property: TM 54, Parcel 72A TM 55, Parcel 14 TM 69~ Parcel 39A Total Ranking Criteria Determination 1.100 acres) 43.510 acres) 56.889 acres) (101.499 acres) 0 DR's + 0 DR's = 0 DR's 5 DR's + 0 DR's = 5 DR's 2 DR's + 2 DR's - 4 DR's 7 DR's + 2 DR's = 9 DR's Source for Points Points Criteria A. 1 Criteria A.2 >3,000' along existing easements plats/County overlay maps 101.499 acres RE Assessor's Office 6.47 2.03 Criteria B.1 no Criteria B.2 no Criteria B.3 7 DR's eliminated Criteria C. 1 no Criteria C.2 yes (farming) Criteria C.3 2,550' on EC 1,610' on SR Criteria C.4 no Criteria C.5 no Criteria C.6 93 acres Criteria C.7 yes ~ in SFRR watershed Criteria C.8 no Criteria C.9 no Criteria C. 10 rda Criteria C. 11 no Criteria D. 1 no Point Tota! landowner 0.00 landowner 0.00 Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50 County overlay maps 0.00 landowner 5.00 County tax map/plats 5.86 PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 County Soil Survey 1.86 County overlay maps 3.00 plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00 landowner 0.00 County Engineering Department 0.00 County overlay maps 0.00 VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00 27.72 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Cotmcil VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road CE = Conservation Easement SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Page, Henry C. Property: Tax Map 73, Parcel 24 (558.900 acres) 0 DR's + 5 DR's = 5 DR's Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A. 1 no Criteria A.2 558.900 acres Criteria B. 1 no Criteria B.2 no Criteria B.3 4 DR's eliminated Criteria C. 1 39 acres of mountaintop PEC/plats RE Assessor's Office landowner landowner Zoning & Planning Departments county overlay maps 0.00 11.18 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.95 Criteria C.2 yes (farming) Criteria C.3 no Criteria C.4 no Criteria C.5 no Criteria C.6 >250 acres Criteria C.7 no Criteria C.8 no Criteria C.9 no Criteria C. 10 n/a Criteria C. 11 no Criteria D. 1 no Point Total PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council. VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation. TNC -- The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed landowner 5.00 County tax map 0.00 PEC & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 County Soil Survey 5.00 County overlay maps 0.00 plats/surveys, County overlay maps 0.00 landowner 0.00 County Engineering Department 0.00 County overlay maps 0.00 VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00 25.13 points Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Bieker, Daniel J. Property: Tax Map 99, Parcel 38A Tax Map 99, Parcel 39 Tax Map 99, Parcel 40 Total 75.250 acres) 13.190 acres) 17.000 acres) 05.440 acres) Ranking Criteria Determination 5 DR's + 3 DR's = 8 DR's 0 DR's + 0 DR's = 0 DR's 0 DR's + 0 DR's = 0 DR's 5 DR's + 3 DR's = 8 DR's Source for Points Points Criteria A. 1 no Criteria A.2 105.440 acres Criteria B.1 no Criteria B.2 no Criteria B.3 7 DR's eliminated Criteria C. 1 21 acres of mountaintop Criteria C.2 yes (farming) Criteria C.3 no PEC/plats 0.00 RE Assessor's Office 2.11 landowner 0.00 landowner 0.00 Zoning & Planning Deparanents 3.50 county overlay maps 1.04 landowner 3.00 County tax map 0.00 Criteria C.4 no Criteria C.5 no Criteria C.6 66 acres of mountaintop Criteria C.7 no Criteria C.8 no Criteria C.9 4,300 feet (>100' wide) Criteria C. 10 n/a Criteria C. 11 no Criteria D. 1 no Point Total PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council. VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation. TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road SFRR = South Fork Rivmma River watershed PEC & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 County Soil Survey 1.32 County overlay maps 0.00 plats/surveys, County overlay maps 0.00 landowner 8.60 County Engineering Department 0.00 County overlay maps 0.00 VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00 19.57 points Rankin~ Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Property: Shiffiett, James M. & Mary H. Tax Map 7, Parcel 25 (61.600 acres) Ranking Criteria Determination 5 DR's 2 DR's -- 7 DR's Source for Points Points Criteria A. 1 > 1,695' along existing easements Criteria A.2 61.600 acres Criteria B. 1 no Criteria B.2 yes Criteria B.3 6 DR's eliminated Criteria C. 1 16 acres of mountaintop Criteria C.2 yes (forestry) Criteria C.3 1,200' on SR Criteria C.4 no Criteria C.5 no Criteria C.6 39 acres Criteria C.7 yes - in SFRR watershed PEC/plats 3.39 RE Assessor's Office 1.23 landowner 0.00 landowner 3.00 Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00 county overlay map 0.80 landowner 3.00 County tax map 1.20 PEC & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 County Soil Survey 0.78 County overlay maps 3.00 Criteria C.8 no Criteria C.9 no Criteria C. 10 n/a Criteria C. 11 no Criteria D.1 no Point Total plats/surveys, County overlay maps 0.00 landowner 0.00 County Engineering Deparmaent 0.00 County overlay maps 0.00 VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00 19.40 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council. VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation. TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Property: Hill, Samuel Tax Map 130, Parcel 17B (145.210 acres) Ranking Criteria Determination 5 DR's + 6 DR's = 11 DR's Source for Points Points Criteria A. 1 no Criteria A.2 145.210 acres Criteria B. 1 no Criteria B.2 no Criteria B.3 9 DR's eliminated Criteria C. 1 no Criteria C.2 yes (farming) Criteria C.3 1,800' on SH/EC Criteria C.4 no Criteria C.5 no Criteria C.6 55 acres Criteria C.7 yes - in TC watershed Criteria C.8 no Criteria C.9 no Criteria C. 10 n/a PEC/plats 0.00 RE Assessor's Office 2.90 landowner 0.00 landowner 0.00 Zoning & Planning Departments 4.50 county overlay maps 0.00 landowner 3.00 County tax map 3.00 PEC & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 County Soil Survey 1.10 County overlay maps 3.00 plats/surveys, County overlay maps 0.00 landowner 0.00 County Engineering Department 0.00 Criteria C. 11 no Criteria D. 1 no Point Total County overlay maps VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00 0.00 17.50 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council. VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation. TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; TC = Totier Creek watershed Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Property: Scruby, Tim & Alice Tax Map 54, Parcel 71 Tax Map 69, Parcel 39 Tax Map 70, Parcel 33A Total ( 25.318 acres) ( 69.381 acres) ( 11.556 acres) (106.255 acres) 5 DR's + 0 DR's = 5 DR's 5 DR's + 0 DR's = 5DR's 0 DR's + 3 DR's = 3 DR's 10 DR's + 3 DR's = 13 DR's Ranking Crite3ia Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A. 1 no Criteria A.2 106.255 acres Criteria B. 1 no Criteria B.2 no Criteria B.3 11 DR's eliminated Criteria C. 1 no Criteria C.2 yes Criteria C.3 1,757 on EC Criteria C.4 no Criteria C.5 no Criteria C.6 101 acres Criteria C.7 yes Criteria C.8 no Criteria C.9 no Criteria C. 10 n/a Criteria C. 11 no Criteria D. 1 no Point Total PEC/plats 0.00 RE Assessor's Office 2.13 landowner 0.00 landowner 0.00 Zoning & Planning Departments 5.50 county overlay maps 0.00 landowner 3.00 County mx map/plats 1.76 PEC & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 County Soil Survey 2.01 County overlay maps 3.00 plats/surveys, County overlay maps 0.00 landowner 0.00 County Engineering Department 0.00 County overlay maps 0.00 VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00 17.40 points PEC -- Piedmont Environmental Council. VOF -- Virginia Outdoors Foundation. TNC = The Natm:e Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination Owner: Property: American Environmental Foundation (AEF) Tax Map 85, Parcel 40 (182.40 acres) 0 DR's + 8 DR's = 8 DRs's Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points Criteria A. 1 no Criteria A.2 182.400 acres Criteria B. 1 no Criteria B.2 no Criteria B.3 7 DR's eliminated Criteria C. 1 28 acres of mountaintop Criteria C.2 no Criteria C.3 no Criteria C.4 no Criteria C.5 no Criteria C.6 81 acres Criteria C.7 yes - in SFRR watershed Criteria C.8 no Criteria C.9 no Criteria C. 10 n/a Criteria C. 11 no Criteria D. 1 no Point Total PEC/plats 0.00 RE Assessor's Office 3.65 landowner 0.00 landowner 0.00 Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50 county overlay maps 1.40 landowner 0.00 County tax map 0.00 PEC & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00 DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00 County Soil Survey 1.62 County overlay maps 3.00 plats/surveys, County overlay maps 0.00 landowner 0.00 County Engineering Department 0.00 County overlay maps 0.00 VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00 13.17 points PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council. VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation. TNC = The Nature Conservancy DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; TC = Totier Creek watershed General Description of Round 4 ACE Properties Attachment "B" Colombini Property_ (157.898 acres) the Colombini property has long frontage on the Rivanna River approximately 4 miles northeast of Charlotteville. Most of the land is represented by fertile bottomland and steep, northfacing bluffs along the Rivanna River. An additional upland parcel is contiguous to the Redbud subdivision. The property is important because of its tremendous conservation and recreational value, particularly the bottomland parcels which contain an old carriage trail and bluffs along the river with unique plant communities and possible habitat for the James spiny mussel, an endangered species. The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property has >8,000 feet of common boundary with other parcels under easement; 2) it has 116 acres of "prime" farmland soils; 3) it has 7,200 feet along the Rivanna River; 4) it has plants and plant communities listed on the natural heritage inventory and; 5) the tract lies in the Southwest Mountains Historic District. Score: 37.24 points (preliminary total). Brian Scrub¥ Property_ (101.499 acres) - the Scruby property consists of three separate parcels of land in the western part of Albemarle County - two in Greenwood (near Mirador) and another along Dick Woods road. 1-64 divided one of the Greenwood parcels into nearly equal halves. Connected to each of these parcels is land owned by Brian's brother Tim. Though the parcels together have good conservation value, particularly if both brother's land is put under easement, their physical configuration makes it problematic for future sale or conveyance. To adhere to our protocol of 1 development lot/100 acres means all three (though physically separate) parcels must convey as one. The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property has >3,000 feet of common boundary with another parcel under easement; 2) it has nearly 2,550 feet of road frontage on 1-64, a major entrance corridor; 3) the tract lies within the watershed of the Rivanna River Reservoir and; 4) it has 93 acres of "prime" farm and foresfland.. Score: 27.72 points (preliminary total). Henry_ Page Property (558.900 acres) - the Page property is located on the eastern flank of Taylor's Mountain, approximately 10 miles southwest of Charlottesville. It consists of rolling farmland, forested mountainland and over 11,000 feet of wooded stream buffer, established by the CREP program. If this buffer were permanently protected under an ACE easement, Mr. Page would score an additional 11 points from the ranking evaluation. Though he currently plans to gift the property to the Virginia Department of Forestry through a revocable trust (for forestry research), an easement would guarantee the protection of the property from future development. Since the tract has no road frontage and a 30 foot right-of-way, County zoning regulations would limit development to five development lots. Though this could substantially reduce the value/cost of an easement, Mr. Page is not put off by this issue. The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) it is a very large tract of land; 2) it contains 250 acres of"prime" farmland; and 3) the property has 39 acres ofridgetop for "mountaintop protection". Score: 25.13 points Daniel Bieker Property_ (105.440 acres) - the Bieker property lies on the eastface of Cook Mountain near the town of North Garden. Except for the lowest footslopes, most of the property is wooded mountainland. Since much of the terrain is fairly steep, it is not overly conducive to development. Furthermore, one must cross a railroad track to access the property. The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) an easement would protect 4,300 feet of stream with a 100 foot wide buffer; 2) the property has 66 acres of ridgetop for "mountaintop protection"; 3) the owner depends on income produced from the land; and 4) an easement would eliminate 7 usable development rights. Score: 19.57 points James Shifflett Property (61.600 acres) - the Shifflett property lies on the northside of Lick Mountain along SR 810 near Boonesville. Though it is only 61.600 acres, the wooded and fairly mountainous property scores from a variety of criteria, the most important of which may be the threat of loss due to economic hardship. The forced sale of this property would spell the end to 3 generations of ownership by the Shifflett family. The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property has >1,700 feet of common boundary with other parcels under easement; 2 the property has 16 acres ofridgetop for "mountaintop protection"; 3) it lies within the watershed of the Rivanna River Reservoir; and 4) the parcel is threatened by economic hardship. Score: 19.40 points e Samuel Hill Property (145.210 acres) - the Hill property lies just west of Scottsville in an area where large working farms are surrounded by dense clusters of development. Since the farm is severely threatened by future development, it has great conservation value. Nearly all of the property consists of highly productive farmland in the Toiler Creek watershed. Mr. Hill farms this property and another he owns in nearby Buckingham County. The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) the property lies within the watershed of the Totier Creek Reservoir; 2) it has 55 acres of "prime" farmland; 3) it has over 1,800 feet of frontage on a Route 20, a state scenic highway and major entrance corridor; 4) the owner depends on the property to provide income; and 5) an easement would eliminate 9 usable development rights. Score: 17.50 points e Tim & Alice Scub¥ Property (106.255 acres) like his brother Brian's property, this property consists of three physically separate parcels - one in Greenwood (near Mirador) and two along Dick Woods road. Connected to each of these parcels is land owned by Brian Scruby. Though the parcels together have good conservation value, their physical configuration makes them problematic for future sale or conveyance. To adhere to our protocol of 1 development lot/100 acres means all three (though physically separate) parcels must convey as one. The primary source of points from the ranking criteria include: 1) an easement would eliminate 11 development rights; 2) it has nearly 1,757 feet of road frontage on 1-64, a major entrance corridor; 3) the tracts lie within the watershed of the Rivanna River Reservoir and; 4) they have 101 acres of "prime" farm and forestland. Score: 16.40 points (preliminary total). COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Amendment to Agreement for Purchase of Electricity from Appalachian Power Company. SU BJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorize Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to execute an Amendment to the Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from Appalachian Power Company. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Trank LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: March 17, 2004 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: INFORMATION: ACTION: × INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: The County entered into a contract for electric service with Appalachian Power Company ("APCo") from July 1, 2000 through June 30, 2002. On February 13, 2002, the Board approved a resolution that authorized an extension of that contract through June 30, 2007. The attached Amendment formalizes the resolution as part of the written Agreement with APCo and makes other changes to rates and services that have been negotiated by the VML/VACo APCo Power Steering Committee on behalf of the County and other VML members. An identical Amendment has been prepared and sent to the School Board for execution, as the School Division also participates in the negotiated service Agreement with APCo. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure. DISCUSSION: The Amendment sets forth the new rates and terms agreed upon by our negotiating committee (the VML/VACO APCo Power Steering Committee) and American Electric Power, the parent company of APCo. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the Amendment with APCo on behalf of the County. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Letter & Amendment Attachment B: Exhibit BB vapa schedules 8-1-03 fuel FINAL Attachment C: Exhibit CC APCo Va OL 8 -1-03 fuel 10-03-04P09:04 RCVD AMERICAN® ELECTRIC POWER American Electric Power P 0 Box 2021 Roanoke VA 24022-2121 www.aeD.com February 16, 2004 Dear: Enclosed are two copies of the "Virginia Public Authorities Amendment to the Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from Appalachian Power Company (dba American Electric Power)" containing the new rates (Exhibit BB and Exhibit CC) and terms agreed upon by your negotiating committee and American Electric Power. The rates under this Amendment have been in effect since August 2002. The term of this Amendment shall be for the provision of service until June 30, 2007. Please have the responsible authority sign both copies, on behalf of the Customer, of this Amendment on page 12 and remm one copy to my attention. Please retain the other copy for your files. Your prompt attention to returning the signed Amendment is appreciated. If you have any questions about the Amendment, please contact me at 540-985-2968. Sincerely, Darren Shepard Customer Services Manager Attachments /d VIRGINIA PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY FROM APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY (d/b/a AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER) THIS AMENDMENT to the Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity is made and entered into as of the 16th day of February, 2004, by and between Appalachian Power Company, dba American Electric Power ("Company"), and _t Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ("Customer"), collectively referred to herein as the Parties: WITNESSTH: WHEREAS, the Company is an electdc operating subsidiary of American Electric Power Company, inc. CAEP"); and WHEREAS, the VMLNACo-Appalachian Power Company Steering Committee ("Committee'), comprised of representatives of local governments and political subdivisions and acting on behalf of such governments and subdivisions located within the service area of the Company ("Public Authorities"), has for many years negotiated the terms of standard contract forms that have included, among other things, rates for the electricity purchased from the Company by the Customer and other Public Authorities; and WHEREAS, the most recent such written contract form, which was entered into by the Customer and other Pubic Authorities customers with the Company in the form of an Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity ("Agreement"), covered the period beginning July 1,2000 and ending June 30, 2002; and WHEREAS, on or about February 15, 2001, the Company and the Committee agreed to extend the term of such agreements through December 31, 2003, at rates set forth in the applicable rate schedules of the Company's Tariff 17, as on file with the Virginia State Corporation Commission ("Commission" or "State Corporation Commission of Virginia"); and WHEREAS, on or about December 20, 2001, the Company, the Committee and the Town of Wytheville, Virginia entered into a letter agreement ("2001 Letter Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company agreed to offer its Public Authorities customers a further extension of the agreements, among other options, subject to certain conditions set forth in the 2001 Letter Agreement, and to enter into an appropriate amendment to its agreements with its Public Authorities customers, once certain conditions precedent contained in the 2001 Letter Agreement had been satisfied; and WHEREAS, certain of the conditions precedent in the 2001 Letter Agreement were contained in the Settlement Agreement Among American Electric Power Service Corporation, American Electric Power Company, Inc. and Virginia and West Virginia Parties ("Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement") in AEP's then pending corporate separation filing at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") in Docket Nos. EC01-130-000 and ER01-2668-000, to which the Committee and the Town of Wy~heville, Virginia, became a signatory on December 20, 2001; and 2 WHEREAS, by Resolution/Letter duly approved and executed, the Customer elected, in accordance with the 2001 Letter Agreement, to extend its Agreement with the Company through June 30, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Company has determined that there are sound business reasons to proceed to execute this Amendment at this time, even though all of the conditions precedent, which were in the 2001 Letter Agreement for the Company's benefit, have not been met; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding its execution of this Amendment prior to the fulfillment of each of the said conditions precedent, the Company reserves AEP's dght and option, during the term of the Company's Agreement with Customer as extended by this Amendment, to implement the AEP corporate separation plan, as proposed in FERC Docket Nos. EC01-130-000 and ER01-2668-000; modified by the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement and the combined offer of settlement in those cases; and approved by the FERC by Order dated September 26, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Company and the Customer desire to extend the term of their Agreement, make other revisions to that Agreement, and establish Street Lighting rates for the Customer, if applicable, as set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein, the Company and the Customer hereby agree as follows: 1. The first sentence of the SECOND Section of the Agreement, entitled Term, is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following new sentence: The term of this Agreement, which originally covered the twenty-four (24) month period beginning July 1, 2000, and ending June 30, 2002, shall be 3 extended for an additional sixty (60) months beginning July 1, 2002, and ending June 30, 2007. A new paragraph is hereby added at the end of the existing FIFTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Extension of Service - Overhead, as follows: If, after July 1, 2002, the State Corporation Commission of Virginia approves a change in the extension of service provisions applicable to the unbundled Standard Rate Schedules that correspond to the schedules in Public Authority Tadff No. 9 (i.e. Standard Rate Schedules SGS, MGS, GS-TOD, LGS and LPS-TOD, or any successor or replacement thereto, hereinafter referred to as "corresponding Standard Rate Schedules"), which provides for the utilization of revenues that exclude generation and/or other revenue components in the calculation of Contributions in Aid of Construction for retail customers served by the Company under those corresponding Standard Rate Schedules, then the Parties agree such change shall be reflected herein. In the first sentence of numbered paragraph (1) of the EIGHTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Rates, the word "The" is hereby deleted and replaced with the following phrase: "For service through July 29, 2002, the". A new paragraph is hereby added at the end of existing numbered paragraph (1), as modified herein, of the EIGHTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Rates, as follows: For service from July 30, 2002, through June 30, 2007, the rates at which the Company shall furnish the electricity herein provided shall be as set forth in "Exhibit BB" entitled "Public Authority Tariff No. 9," attached hereto 4 and made a part hereof (which match the rates contained in the Company's unbundled Standard Rate Schedules, on file and approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission) as applicable to the Customer; provided, however, that if the State Corporation Commission of Virginia approves changes to the rates contained in the Company's corresponding Standard Rate Schedules, then the rates in Exhibit BB shall be changed to match those in the corresponding Standard Rate Schedules. In the event that there are no longer any corresponding Standard Rate Schedules on file with the State Corporation Commission of Virginia because the Commission has terminated such rate schedules, the Parties agree that the Company shall charge the Customer the rates in the last applicable Exhibit BB through June 30, 2007; provided, however, to accommodate the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement if such fuel protections are operative, and to provide for the continued recovery of only the Company's actual fuel costs incurred through the term of this Agreement, the Parties agree to enter into good faith negotiations to develop a reasonable fuel adjustment mechanism. The Parties further understand and agree that the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement will be applicable to the Customer if and when those protections are operative for the Company's other Virginia retail customers, through June 30, 2007. 5 The second and third sentences of numbered paragraph (2) of the EIGHTH Section of this Agreement, entitled Rates, are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following two new sentences: Thereafter, through July 29, 2002, the last bundled Schedule O.L. shall apply. A copy of the December 1, 1999 version of Schedule O.L. is attached as "Exhibit C." A new paragraph is hereby added at the end of existing numbered paragraph (2), as modified herein, of the EIGHTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Rates, as follows: From July 30, 2002, through June 30, 2007, outdoor lighting service will be furnished in accordance with the monthly rates, hours of lighting, and ownership of facilities provisions of Schedule O.L. or any successor or replacement thereto (hereinafter referred to as Schedule O.L.), as contained in the Company's tariff then on file with the State Corporation Commission of Virginia. A copy of the Company's current Schedule O.L. is attached as "Exhibit CC". In the event that there is no longer a Schedule O.L. on file with the State Corporation Commission of Virginia because the Commission has terminated that schedule, the Parties agree that the monthly rates, hours of lighting and ownership of facilities provisions of the last Schedule O.L. shall continue to apply to the Customer through June 30, 2007; provided, however, to accommodate the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement if such fuel protections are operative, and to provide for the continued recovery of only the Company's actual fuel costs incurred 6 through the remainder of the term of this Agreement, the Parties agree to enter into good faith negotiations to develop a reasonable "Generation Levelized Fuel" rate component. The Parties further understand and agree that the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement will be applicable to the Customer if and when those protections are operative for the Company's other Virginia retail customers, through June 30, 2007. A new numbered paragraph (3) shall be added to the EIGHTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Rates, as follows: Beginning July 1, 2002, through the term of this Agreement, the rates for the Street Lighting Service provided to the Customer by Company, if any, shall be the rates in effect July 1, 2000, unbundled into the applicable components; provided, however, that those rates shall be subject to changes in the fuel factor (i.e. the levelized fuel component), including the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement if operative, through June 30, 2007. The second full paragraph of the TENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Information to be Provided, is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following new paragraph: The above information shall be provided electronically to the single designated representative of the PA customer group, at no expense to the Customer for the first request, within 90 days after receiving the request, but in any event not later than January 1, 2007. The Company shall comply with any reasonable additional requests from the designated 7 10. 11. representative of the PA customers for the data described above, but no more frequently than once in any calendar year, and the Customer agrees to pay for such data. The paragraph in the ELEVENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Distribution, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new paragraph: The Company agrees to provide to the designated representative of the PA customer group, by May 1, 2006, a proposed distribution revenue requirement and distribution rate(s) based on the cost of providing distribution service to the PA customers, together with the underlying distribution cost of service study and supporting work papers. The Company agrees to comply with all additional reasonable requests for information in connection with the proposed distribution rates. The Company shall respond to any such requests from the PA customer group for information within 30 days from receipt of such requests. The Parties further agree to enter into good faith negotiations to establish, by January 1, 2007, a cost-of-service based distribution rate, to be effective after June 30, 2007, for service to PA customers and for the distribution component of street lighting rates. In the first sentence of the THIRTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Generation, the year "2002" is changed to "2007". Numbered paragraph (4) of the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following new paragraph: The following exhibits are attached hereto and made a part hereof: 8 12. 13. Exhibit A- A list of Accounts as of July 1,2000 Exhibit B - Public Authority Tariff No. 8, Schedule P.A. Exhibit BB - Public Authority Tadff No. 9 Exhibit C - The December 1, 1999 version of the Company's Schedule O.L. Exhibit CC - The Company's Current Schedule O.L. In accordance with the terms of other Sections of this Agreement, Exhibits BB and CC may be updated, or revised, from time to time, during the term of this Agreement. The following new paragraph is added to the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, as new numbered paragraph (6): This Agreement shall not be sold, assigned, or transferred by the Company to any other entity, including an affiliate of the Company, without the express written consent of the Customer; provided, however, that such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld by the Customer. The following new paragraph is hereby added to the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, as new numbered paragraph (7): The Customer represents and agrees that (1) it has chosen the Company to provide generation service through June 30, 2007; 2) it will not choose a different generation supplier to begin providing service prior to June 30, 2007; and, 3) it will not request that the State Corporation Commission of Virginia determine rates and provisions for default service (as defined ~n 9 14. § 56-585 of the Code of Virginia) from the Company different than that provided for under this Agreement. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to preclude the Customer from qualifying for or receiving default service from a different default service provider in the event that such a provider has been named for the Company's service territory and the Company fails to deliver under this Agreement. The Company and the Customer further agree that the types of interruptions of service provided for in other Sections of this Agreement shall not constitute a failure to deliver for purposes of § 56-585 of the Code of Virginia. The following new paragraph is hereby added to the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, as new numbered paragraph (8): Given the Customer's agreement, as contained in numbered paragraph (7) of this Section, that it will not request that the State Corporation Commission of Virginia determine rates and provisions for default service from the Company different than provided for under this Agreement, the Customer agrees not to participate in workgroups or default service proceedings before the Commission during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that the Parties understand and agree that the Customer shall be entitled to participate in such workgroups or proceedings after June 30, 2007, or before, if the Company is not designated the default service provider in its service territory, or the Commission initiates a proceeding concerning competitive bidding for default service. 10 15. 16. The following new paragraph is hereby added to the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, as new numbered paragraph (9): The Parties agree that, during the term of this Agreement, AEP continues to have the right and option, to implement the corporate restructuring plan approved by the Federal Energy Docket Nos. EC01-130-000 and Regulatory Commission ("FERC") in ER01-2668-000, by Order dated September 26, 2002 ("Corporate Restructuring Plan"). If, during the term of this Agreement, AEP implements the Corporate Restructuring Plan, then the Customer agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement filed in Docket Nos. EC01- 130-000 and ER01-2668-000. If AEP does not implement the Corporate Restructuring Plan during the term of this Agreement, thereby maintaining the status quo for the AEP-East Companies through June 30, 2007, then the Customer agrees not to oppose any actions that AEP takes before any state or federal regulatory body, prior to June 30, 2007, to permit AEP to maintain such status quo. The following new paragraph is hereby added to the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Addit!onal Terms and Conditions, as new numbered paragraph (10): During the term of this Agreement, the Customer agrees not to oppose any actions that AEP takes before any state or federal regulatory body to implement Exempt Wholesale Generator generating units specified in the March 11, 11 ("EWG") status for the 2002 letter of the State Corporation Commission of Virginia regarding such EWG status; provided, however, the Parties understand and agree that such agreement is limited to the specific generating units listed on Exhibit 1 to the Commission's March tl, 2002 letter. 17. Current numbered paragraphs (6) and (7) of the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, are hereby renumbered as numbered paragraphs (11 ) and (12), respectively. 18. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect throughout the term of the Agreement, as extended by this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized officials as of the day and year first above written. Appalachian Power Company d/b/a American Electric Power ("Company") By: Name: Darren Shepard Title: Customer Services Manaqer 12 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ("Customer") By: Name: Title: AMERICAN® ELECTRIC POWER American Electric Power P 0 Box 202] Roanoke, VA 24022-2121 www.aee.com February 16, 2004 Dear: Enclosed are two copies of the "Virginia Public Authorities Amendment to the Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity from Appalachian Power Company (dba American Electric Power)" containing the new rates (Exhibit BB and Exhibit CC) and terms agreed upon by your negotiating committee and American Electric Power. The rates under this Amendment have been in effect since August 2002. The term of this Amendment shall be for the provision of service until June 30, 2007. Please have the responsible authority sign both copies, on behalf of the Customer, of this Amendment on page 12 and return one copy to my attention. Please retain the other copy for your files. Your prompt attention to returning the signed Amendment is appreciated. If you have any questions about the Amendment, please contact me at 540-985-2968. Sincerely, Darren Shepard Customer Services Manager Attachments /d VIRGINIA PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF ELECTRICITY FROM APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY (d/b/a AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER) THIS AMENDMENT to the Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity is made and entered into as of the 16th day of February, 2004, by and between Appalachian Power Company, dba American Electric Power ("Company"), and t Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ("CustomeF), collectively referred to herein as the Parties: WITNESSTH: WHEREAS, the Company is an electdc operating subsidiary of American Electric Power Company, Inc. CAEP"); and WHEREAS, the VMLJACo-Appalachian Power Company Steedng Committee ("Committee'), comprised of representatives of local governments and political subdivisions and acting on behalf of such governments and subdivisions located within the service area of the Company ("Public Authorities"), has for many years negotiated the terms of standard contract forms that have included, among other things, rates for the electricity purchased from the Company by the Customer and other Public Authorities; and WHEREAS, the most recent such written contract form, which was entered into by the Customer and other Pubic Authorities customers with the Company in the form of an Agreement for the Purchase of Electricity ("Agreement"), covered the period beginning July 1, 2000 and ending June 30, 2002; and WHEREAS, on or about February 15, 2001, the Company and the Committee agreed to extend the term of such agreements through December 31, 2003, at rates set forth in the applicable rate schedules of the Company's Tariff 17, as on file with the Virginia State Corporation Commission ("Commission" or "State Corporation Commission of Virginia"); and WHEREAS, on or about December 20, 2001, the Company, the Committee and the Town of Wytheville, Virginia entered into a letter agreement ("2001 Letter Agreement"), pursuant to which the Company agreed to offer its Public Authorities customers a further extension of the agreements, among other options, subject to certain conditions set forth in the 2001 Letter Agreement, and to enter into an appropriate amendment to its agreements with its Public Authorities customers, once certain conditions precedent contained in the 2001 Letter Agreement had been satisfied; and WHEREAS, certain of the conditions precedent in the 2001 Letter Agreement were contained in the Settlement Agreement Among American Electric Power Service Corporation, American Electric Power Company, Inc. and Virginia and West Virginia Parties ("Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement") in AEP's then pending corporate separation filing at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") in Docket Nos. EC01-130-000 and ER01-2668-000, to which the Committee and the Town of Wytheville, Virginia, became a signatory on December 20, 2001; and 2 WHEREAS, by Resolution/Letter duly approved and executed, the Customer elected, in accordance with the 2001 Letter Agreement, to extend its Agreement with the Company through June 30, 2007; and WHEREAS, the Company has determined that there are sound business reasons to proceed to execute this Amendment at this time, even though all of the conditions precedent, which were in the 2001 Letter Agreement for the Company's benefit, have not been met; and WHEREAS, notwithstanding its execution of this Amendment prior to the fulfillment of each of the said conditions precedent, the Company reserves AEP's dght and option, during the term of the Company's Agreement with Customer as extended by this Amendment, to implement the AEP corporate separation plan, as proposed in FERC Docket Nos. EC01-130-000 and ER01-2668-000; modified by the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement and the combined offer of settlement in those cases; and approved by the FERC by Order dated September 26, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Company and the Customer desire to extend the term of their Agreement, make other revisions to that Agreement, and establish Street Lighting rates for the Customer, if applicable, as set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein, the Company and the Customer hereby agree as follows: 1. The first sentence of the SECOND Section of the Agreement, entitled Term, is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following new sentence: The term of this Agreement, which originally covered the twenty-four (24) month period beginning July 1, 2000, and ending June 30, 2002, shall be 3 extended for an additional sixty (60) months beginning July 1, 2002, and ending June 30, 2007. A new paragraph is hereby added at the end of the existing FIFTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Extension of Service - Overhead, as follows: If, after July 1, 2002, the State Corporation Commission of Virginia approves a change in the extension of service provisions applicable to the unbundled Standard Rate Schedules that correspond to the schedules in Public Authority Tariff No. 9 (i.e. Standard Rate Schedules SGS, MGS, GS-TOD, LGS and LPS-TOD, or any successor or replacement thereto, hereinafter referred to as "corresponding Standard Rate Schedules"), which provides for the utilization of revenues that exclude, generation and/or other revenue components in the calculation of Contributions in Aid of Construction for retail customers served by the Company under those corresponding Standard Rate Schedules, then the Parties agree such change shall be reflected herein. In the first sentence of numbered paragraph (1) of the EIGHTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Rates, the word "The" is hereby deleted and replaced with the following phrase: "For service through July 29, 2002, the". A new paragraph is hereby added at the end of existing numbered paragraph (1), as modified herein, of the EIGHTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Rates, as follows: For service from July 30, 2002, through June 30, 2007, the rates at which the Company shall furnish the electricity herein provided shall be as set forth in "Exhibit BB" entitled "Public Authority Tariff No. 9," attached hereto 4 and made a part hereof (which match the rates contained in the Company's unbundled Standard Rate Schedules, on file and approved by the Virginia State Corporation Commission) as applicable to the Customer; provided, however, that if the State Corporation Commission of Virginia approves changes to the rates contained in the Company's corresponding Standard Rate Schedules, then the rates in Exhibit BB shall be changed to match those in the corresponding Standard Rate Schedules. In the event that there are no longer any corresponding Standard Rate Schedules on file with the State Corporation Commission of Virginia because the Commission has terminated such rate schedules, the Parties agree that the Company shall charge the Customer the rates in the last applicable Exhibit BB through June 30, 2007; provided, however, to accommodate the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement if such fuel protections are operative, and to provide for the continued recovery of only the Company's actual fuel costs incurred through the term of this Agreement, the Parties agree to enter into good faith negotiations to develop a reasonable fuel adjustment mechanism. The Parties further understand and agree that the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement will be applicable to the Customer if and when those protections are operative for the Company's other Virginia retail customers, through June 30, 2007. 5 The second and third sentences of numbered paragraph (2) of the EIGHTH Section of this Agreement, entitled Rates., are hereby deleted and replaced in their entirety with the following two new sentences: Thereafter, through July 29, 2002, the last bundled Schedule O.L. shall apply. A copy of the December 1, 1999 version of Schedule O.L. is attached as "Exhibit C." A new paragraph is hereby added at the end of existing numbered paragraph (2), as modified herein, of the EIGHTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Rates, as follows: From July 30, 2002, through June 30, 2007, outdoor lighting service will be furnished in accordance with the monthly rates, hours of lighting, and ownership of facilities provisions of Schedule O.L. or any successor or replacement thereto (hereinafter referred to as Schedule O.L.), as contained in the Company's tadff then on file with the State Corporation Commission of Virginia. A copy of the Company's current Schedule O.L. is attached as "Exhibit CC". In the event that there is no longer a Schedule O.L. on file with the State Corporation Commission of Virginia because the Commission has terminated that schedule, the Parties agree that the monthly rates, hours of lighting and ownership of facilities provisions of the last Schedule O.L. shall continue to apply to the Customer through June 30, 2007; provided, however, to accommodate the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement if such fuel protections are operative, and to provide for the continued recovery of only the Company's actual fuel costs incurred 6 through the remainder of the term of this Agreement, the Parties agree to enter into good faith negotiations to develop a reasonable "Generation Levelized Fuel" rate component. The Parties further understand and agree that the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement will be applicable to the Customer if and when those protections are operative for the Company's other Virginia retail customers, through June 30, 2007. A new numbered paragraph (3) shall be added to the EIGHTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Rates, as follows: Beginning July 1, 2002, through the term of this Agreement, the rates for the Street Lighting Service provided to the Customer by Company, if any, shall be the rates in effect July 1, 2000, unbundled into the applicable components; provided, however, that those rates shall be subject to changes in the fuel factor (i.e. the levelized fuel component), including the fuel protections contained in the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement if operative, through June 30, 2007. The second full paragraph of the TENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Information to be Provided, is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following new paragraph: The above information shall be provided electronically to the single designated representative of the PA customer group, at no expense to the Customer for the first request, within 90 days after receiving the request, but in any event not later than January 1, 2007. The Company shall comply with any reasonable additional requests from the designated 7 10. 11. representative of the PA customers for the data described above, but no more frequently than once in any calendar year, and the Customer agrees to pay for such data. The paragraph in the ELEVENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Distribution., is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following new paragraph: The Company agrees to provide to the designated representative of the PA customer group, by May 1, 2006, a proposed distribution revenue requirement and distribution rate(s) based on the cost of providing distribution service to the PA customers, together with the underlying distribution cost of service study and supporting work papers. The Company agrees to comply with all additional reasonable requests for information in connection with the proposed distribution rates. The Company shall respond to any such requests from the PA customer group for information within 30 days from receipt of such requests. The Parties further agree to enter into good faith negotiations to establish, by January 1, 2007, a cost-of-service based distribution rate, to be effective after June 30, 2007, for service to PA customers and for the distribution component of street lighting rates. In the first sentence of the THIRTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled _G. eneration, the year "2002" is changed to "2007". Numbered paragraph (4) of the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following new paragraph: The following exhibits are attached hereto and made a part hereof: 8 12. 13. Exhibit A- A list of Accounts as of July 1, 2000 Exhibit B - Public Authority Tariff No. 8, Schedule P.A. Exhibit BB - Public Authority Tadff No. 9 Exhibit C- The December 1, 1999 version of the Company's Schedule O.L. Exhibit CC - The Company's Current Schedule O.L. In accordance with the terms of other Sections of this Agreement, Exhibits BB and CC may be updated, or revised, from time to time, during the term of t.his Agreement. The following new paragraph is added to the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, as new numbered paragraph (6): This Agreement shall not be sold, assigned, or transferred by the Company to any other entity, including an affiliate of the Company, without the express written consent of the Customer; provided, however, that such permission shall not be unreasonably withheld by the Customer. The following new paragraph is hereby added to the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, as new numbered paragraph (7): The Customer represents and agrees that (1)it has chosen the Company to provide generation service through June 30, 2007; 2) it will not choose a different generation supplier to begin providing service prior to June 30, 2007; and, 3) it will not request that the State Corporation Commission of Virginia determine rates and provisions for default service (as defined in 9 14. § 56-585 of the Code of Virginia) from the Company different than that provided for under this Agreement. Nothing in the preceding sentence shall apply to preclude the Customer from qualifying for or receiving default service from a different default service provider in the event that such a provider has been named for the Company's service territory and the Company fails to deliver under this Agreement. The Company and the Customer further agree that the types of interruptions of service provided for in other Sections of this Agreement shall not constitute a failure to deliver for purposes of § 56-585 of the Code of Virginia. The following new paragraph is hereby added to the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, as new numbered paragraph (8): Given the Customer's agreement, as contained in numbered paragraph (7) of this Section, that it will not request that the State Corporation Commission of Virginia determine rates and provisions for default service from the Company different than provided for under this Agreement, the Customer agrees not to participate in workgroups or default service proceedings before the Commission dudng the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that the Parties understand and agree that the Customer shall be entitled to participate in such workgroups or proceedings after June 30, 2007, or before, if the Company is not designated the default service provider in Commission initiates a default service. its service territory, or the proceeding concerning competitive bidding for 10 15. 16. The following new paragraph is hereby added to the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, as new numbered paragraph (9): The Parties agree that, during the term of this Agreement, AEP continues to have the right and option, to implement the corporate restructuring plan approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC') in Docket Nos. EC01-130-000 and ER01-2668-000, by Order dated September 26, 2002 ("Corporate Restructuring Plan"). If, during the term of this Agreement, AEP implements the Corporate Restructuring Plan, then the Customer agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Virginia/West Virginia Settlement Agreement filed in Docket Nos. EC01- 130-000 and ER01-2668-000. If AEP does not implement the Corporate Restructuring Plan during the term of this Agreement, thereby maintaining the status quo for the AEP-East Companies through June 30, 2007, then the Customer agrees not to oppose any actions that AEP takes before any state or federal regulatory body, prior to June 30, 2007, to permit AEP to maintain such status quo. The following new paragraph is hereby added to the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Conditions, as new numbered paragraph (10): During the term of this Agreement, the Customer agrees not to oppose any actions that AEP takes before any state or federal regulatory body to implement Exempt Wholesale Generator generating units specified in the March 11, 11 ("EWG") status for the 2002 letter of the State Corporation Commission of Virginia regarding such EWG status; provided, however, the Parties understand and agree that such agreement is limited to the specific generating units listed on Exhibit 1 to the Commission's March 11,2002 letter. 17. Current numbered paragraphs (6) and (7) of the FOURTEENTH Section of the Agreement, entitled Additional Terms and Condition.s, are hereby renumbered as numbered paragraphs (11 ) and (12), respectively. 18. Except as modified by this Amendment, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect throughout the term of the Agreement, as extended by this Amendment. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized officials as of the day and year first above written. Appalachian Power Company d/b/a American Electric Power ("Company") By: Name: Darren Shepard Title: Customer Services Manaqer 12 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors ("Customer") By: Name: Title: APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY d/b/a American Electric Power Exhibit BB 2nd Revision of Sheet No. 1-1 PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE S.G.S.P.A. (Small General Service - Public Authority) AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE Available for general service to municipal corporations and state governmental entities, excluding Public Housing Authorities and the Commonwealth of Virgmia, as those terms are used in §§56-232 and 234 of the Code of Virginia and in pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia, with normal maximum electrical capacity requirements of 25 KW or less per month who take Public Authority Service from the Company. When a customer being served under this Schedule exceeds a normal maximum requirement of 25 KW per month for more than two (2) months during the past twelve (12) months, the customer will be placed on the appropriate Public Authority Schedule. MONTHLY RATE (Schedule Code 232 - Secondary Voltage; Schedule Code 235 - Primary Voltage) OATT Retail Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Total Customer Charge ($) ...... 9.50 9.50 Energy Charge (C/kWh) 1.399 0.368 0.092 1.377 3.236 Levelized Fuel Factor (C/kWh) 1.300 ...... 1.300 MINIMUM CHARGE This Schedule is subject to a minimum monthly charge equal to the Customer Charge. PAYMENT Bills are due upon presentation and payable by mail, checkless payment plan, electronic payment plan, or at authorized payment agents of the Company by the next bill date. On all accounts not so paid, a charge of 1½% per month will be applied to any account balances not received by the Company by the next bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills promptly after the billing date, the due date will be extended accordingly. The customer may designate its billing address. TERM The term shall be as contained in the agreement for electric service, between the Company and each city, county, and town governmental authority, for service after July l, 2002. Further written agreements may be required pursuant to the Extension of Service provision of that agreement. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Schedule is subject to all terms and conditions contained in the agreement for electric service, between the Company and each city, county, and town governmental authority, for service after July 1, 2002. Customers with cogeneration and/or small power production facilities shall take service by special agreement with the Company. Issued August 22, 2003 Pursuant to Order Dated July 25, 2003 IT~e~ N~ Effective August 1, 2003 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY 2nd Revision of d/b/a American Electric Power Sheet No. 1-2 PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE S.G.S.P.A. (Small General Service - Public Authority) (continued) LOAD MANAGEMENT TIME-OF-DAY PROVISION Available to customers who use energy storage devices with time-differentiated load characteristics approved by the Company, such as electric thermal storage space heating and/or cooling systems and water heaters, which consume electrical energy only during off-peak hours specified by the Company and store energy for use during on-peak hours. A time-of-day meter is required to take service under this provision. Customers who desire to separately wire their energy storage load to a time-of-day meter and their general-use load to a standard meter shall receive service under the appropriate provisions of the Public Authority Schedule. Monthly Rate: OATT Retail Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Total Customer Charge ($) ...... 11.00 11.00 Energy Charge (C/kWh) All metered kWh during the on-peak billing period 1.351 0.833 0.164 2.468 4.816 All metered kWh during the off-peak billing period 1.222 ...... 1.222 Levelized Fuel Factor (C/kWh) 1.300 ...... 1.300 For the purpose of this provision, the on-peak billing period is defined as7 a.m. to 8 p.m., local time, for all weekdays, Monday through Friday. The off-peak billing period is defined as 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., local time, for all weekdays, all hours of the day on Saturdays and Sundays, and the legally observed holidays of New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. The Company reserves the right to inspect at all reasonable times the energy storage devices which qualify for service under this provision, and to ascertain by any reasonable means that the time-differentiated load characteristics of such devices meet the Company's specifications. If the Company finds that, in its sole judgment, the availability conditions of this provision are being violated, it may discontinue billing the customer under this provision and commence billing under the appropriate Public Authority Schedule. This provision is subject to the Terms and Conditions of Schedule S.G.S.P.A. Issued: August 22, 2003 Pursuant to Order Dated July 25, 2003 Case No. PUE-2003-00286 Effective: August 1, 2003 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY 2nd Revision of d/b/a American Electric Power Sheet No. 1-3 PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE S.G.S.P.A. (Small General Service - Public Authority) (continued) OPTIONAL UNMETERED SERVICE PROVISION (Schedule Code 212) Available to customers who qualify for Schedule S.G.S.P.A. and use the Company's service for small fixed electrical loads such as traffic signals and signboards which can be served by a standard service drop from the Company's existing secondary distribution system. This service will be furnished at the option of the Company. Each separate service delivery point shall be considered a location and shall be separately billed under the service agreement. In the even; one customer has several accounts for like service, the Company may meter one account to determine the appropriate kilowatt-hour usage applicable to each of the accounts. The customer shall furnish switching equipment satisfactory to the Company. The customer shall notify the Company in advance of every change in connected load, and the Company reserves the right to inspect the customer's equipment at any time to verify the actual load. In the event of the customer's failure to notify the Company of an increase in load, the Company reserves the right to refuse to serve the location thereafter under this provision, and shall be entitled to bill the customer retroactively on the basis of the increased load for the full period such load was connected plus three months. Calculated energy use per month shall be equal to the capacity specified for the location times the number of days in the billing period times the specified hours of operation. Such calculated energy shall then be billed at the following monthly rate: OATT Retail Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Total Customer Charge ($) ...... 7.00 7.00 Energy Charge (C/kWh) 1.399 0.368 0.092 1.377 3.236 Levelized Fuel Factor (C/kWh) 1.300 ...... 1.300 This provision is subject to the Terms and Conditions of Schedule S.G.S.P.A. Issued: August 22, 2003 Pursuant to Order Dated July 25, 2003 Case No. PUE-2003-00286 Effective: August 1, 2003 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Sheet No. 2-1 d/b/a American Electric Power PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE M.G.S.P.A. (Medium General Service - Public Authority) AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE Available for general service to municipal corporations and state governmental entities, excluding Public Housing Authorities and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as those terms are used in §§56-232 and 234 of the Code of Virginia and in pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia, who take Public Authority Service from the Company with normal maximum demands exceeding 25 KW per month for more than two (2) months during the past twelve (12) months, but less than 1,000 KW per month. When a customer being served under this Schedule establishes or exceeds a normal maximum requirement of 1,000 KW per month, the customer will be placed on the appropriate L.P.S.-T.O.D.P.A. Schedule. MONTHLY RATE Schedule OATT Retail Code Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Total 216 Secondary Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 18.00 18.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.42 3.42 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) ...... 1.99 1.99 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 1.789 0.501 0.139 0.055 2.484 Maximum Energy Charge (C/KWH) 1.962 0.549 0.152 10.337 13.000 218 Primary Voltage: Customer Charge ($) -- ' .... 55.00 55.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.65 2.65 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) ...... 1.40 1.40 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 1.737 0.487 0.138 0.051 2.413 Maximum Energy Charge (C/KWH) 2.334 0.655 0.185 9.826 13.000 245 Subtransmission Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 55.00 55.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 1.72 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) ...... 0.76 0.76 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 1.707 0.478 0.134 0.051 2.370 Maximum Energy Charge (C/KWH) 3.133 0.877 0.246 8.744 13.000 Issued: August 28, 2002 Effective: August 28, 2002 (Non-prorated) APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY 2nd Revision of d/b/a American Electric Power Sheet No. 2-2 PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE M.G.S.P.A. (Medium General Service - Public Authority) (continued) MONTHLY RATE (Cont'd) Schedule OATT Retail Code Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Total Transmission Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 55.00 55.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 1.44 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) ...... 0.59 0.59 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 1.687 0.472 0.132 0.051 2.342 Maximum Energy Charge (C/KWH) 3.488 0.976 0.273 8.263 13.000 Applicable to customers 300 KW or greater: Distribution Reactive Demand Charge for each KVAR of leading or lagging reactive demand in excess of 50% of the KW metered demand .... $0.75 per KVAR Generation Levelized Fuel Factor ..................................... 1.300¢ per KWH MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM CHARGES Bills computed under the above rate are subject to the operation of Minimum and Max/mum Charge provisions as follows: (a) Minimum Charge - For demand accounts up to 100 KW - the Customer Charge and all applicable adjustments. For demand accounts over 100 KW - the sum of the Customer Charge, the product of the Demand Charge and the monthly billing demand, and all applicable adjuslrnents. (b) Maximum Charge- The sum of the Customer Charge, the product of the Maximum Energy Charge and the metered energy, and all applicable adjustments. ~his provision shall not reduce the charge below the amount specified in the Minimum Charge provision above, (a). PAYMENT Bills are due upon presentation and payable by mail, checkless payment plan, electronic payment plan, or at authorized payment agents of the Company by the next bill date. On all accounts not so paid, a charge of 1½% per month will be applied to any account balances not received by the Company by the next bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills promptly after the billing date, the due date will be extended accordingly. The customer may designate its billing address. Issued: August 22, 2003 Pursuant to Order Dated July 25, 2003 Case No. PUE-2003-00286 Effective: August 1, 2003 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Sheet No. 2-3 d/b/a American Electric Power PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE M.G.S.P.A. (Medium General Service - Public Authority) (continued) MEASUREMENT AND DETERMINATION OF BILLING DEMAND The billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the single highest 15-minute peak in KW as registered during the month by a demand meter or indicator. For accounts over 100 KW, the monthly billing demand established hereunder shall not be less than 60% of the greater of (a) the customer's contract capacity in excess of 100 KW, or (b) the customer's highest previously established monthly billing demand during the past 11 months in excess of 100 KW. For accounts 300 KW or greater, the reactive demand in KVAR shall be taken each month as the single highest 15-minute peak in KVAR as registered during the month by a demand meter or indicator. Billing demands shall be rounded to the nearest whole KW and KVAR. OPTIONAL TIME-OF-DAY PROVISION Available to customers who operate primarily during the off-peak period (as set forth below) and request the installation of time-of-day metering in order to receive service under this provision. The customer shall be required to pay any necessary additional metering cost. For the purpose of this provision, the monthly billing demand as defined above shall be determined during the on-peak period. The off-peak excess demand shall be the amount by which the demand created during the off-peak period exceeds the monthly billing demand. For the purpose of this provision, the on-peak billing period is defined as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., local time, for all weekdays, Monday through Friday. The off-peak billing period is defined as 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., local time, for all weekdays, all hours of the day on Saturdays and Sundays, and the legally observed holidays of New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. METERED VOLTAGE ADJUSTMENT The rates set forth in this Schedule are based upon delivery and measurement of energy at the same voltage. When the measurement of energy occurs at a voltage different than the delivery voltage, the measurement of energy will be compensated to the delivery voltage. At the sole discretion of the Company, such compensation may be achieved through the use of loss compensating equipment, the use of formulas to calculate losses, or the application of multipliers to the metered quantities. In such cases, metered KWH, KW and KVAR will be adjusted for billing purposes. In cases where multipliers are used to adjust metered usage, the adjustment shall be as follows: (a) Measurements taken at the Iow-side ora customer-owned transformer will be multiplied by 1.01. (b) Measurements taken at the high-side of a Company-owned transformer will be multiplied by 0.98. TERM The term shall be as contained in the agreement for electric service, between the Company and each city, county, and town governmental authority, for service after July 1, 2002. Further written agreements may be required pursuant to the Extension of Service provision of that agreement. A contract capacity will be required for customers with annual average demands greater than 500 KW. The Company shall not be required to supply capacity in excess of that contract capacity except by mutual agreement. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Schedule is subject to all terms and conditions contained in the agreement for electric service between the Company and each city, county, and town governmental authority for service after July 1, 2002. Customers with cogeneration and/or small power production facilities shall take service by special agreement with the Company. Issued: August 28, 2002 Effective: August 28, 2002 (Non-prorated) APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY 2nd Revision of d/b/a American Electric Power Sheet No. 3-1 PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE G.S.-T.O.D.P.A. (General Service Time-of-Day - Public Authority) AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE Available for general service to municipal corporations and state governmental entities, excluding Public Housing Authorities and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as those terms are used in §§56-232 and 234 of the Code of Virginia and in pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia, who take Public Authority Service from the Company and are served at the secondary or primary delivery voltage levels with normal maximum demands less than 500 KW. Availability of service under this Schedule is restricted to the first fifty (50) customers applying for service. MONTHLY RATE Schedule OATT Retail Code Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Total 237 Secondary Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 18.90 18.90 On-peak Energy Charge (C/kWh) 1.694 0.788 0.182 2.170 4.834 Off-peak Energy Charge (C/kWh) 1.240 ...... 1.240 Primary Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 56.40 56.40 On-peak Energy Charge (C/kWh) 1.643 0.766 0.176 1.891 4.476 Off-peak Energy Charge (C/kWh) 1.179 ...... 1.179 Generation Levelized Fuel Factor ......................................................................................... 1.300¢ per KWH For the purpose of this Schedule, the on-peak billing period is defined as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., local time, for all weekdays, Monday through Friday. The off-peak billing period is defined as 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., local time, for all weekdays, all hours of the day on Saturdays and Sundays, and the legally observed holidays of New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. MINIMUM CHARGE This Schedule is subject to a minimum monthly charge equal to the Customer Charge. PAYMENT Bills are due upon presentation and payable by mail, checkless payment plan, electronic payment plan, or at authorized payment agents of the Company by the next bill date. On all accounts not so paid, a charge of 1½% per month will be applied to any account balances not received by the Company by the next bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills promptly after the billing date, the due date will be extended accordingly. The customer may designate its billing address. Issued: August 22, 2003 Pursuant to Order Dated July 25, 2003 Case No. PUE-2003-00286 Effective: August 1, 2003 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Sheet No. 3-2 d/b/a American Electric Power PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE G.S.-T.O.D.P.A. (General Service Time-of-Day - Public Authority) (continued) METERED VOLTAGE ADJUSTMENT The rates set forth in this Schedule are based upon delivery and measurement of energy at the same voltage. When the measurement of energy occurs at a voltage different than the delivery voltage, the measurement of energy will be compensated to the delivery voltage. At the sole discretion of the Company, such compensation may be achieved through the use of loss compensating equipment, the use of formulas to calculate losses, or the application of multipliers to the metered quantities. In such cases, metered KWH will be adjusted for billing purposes. In cases where multipliers are used to adjust metered usage, the adjustment shall be as follows: (a) Measurements taken at the low-side of a customer-owned transformer will be multiplied by 1.01. (b) Measurements taken at the high-side ora Company-owned transformer will be multiplied by 0.98. SEPARATE METERING PROVISION Customers shall have the option of receiving service under the appropriate Public Authority Schedule for general use load by separately wiring such load to the appropriate metering based on the size of the load. TERM The term shall be as contained in the agreement for electric service, between the Company and each city, county, and town governmental authority, for service after July 1, 2002. Further written agreements may be required pursuant to the Extension of Service provision of that agreement. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Schedule is subject to all terms and conditions contained in the agreement for electric service between the 'Company and each city, county, and town governmental authority for service after July 1, 2002. Customers with cogenerafion and/or small power production facilities shall take service by special agreement with the Company. Issued: August 28, 2002 Effective: August 28, 2002 (Non-prorated) APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Sheet No. 4-1 d/b/a American Electric Power PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE L.G.S.P.A. (Large General Service - Public Authority) AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE Available for general service to municipal corporations and state governmental entities, excluding Public Housing Authorities and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as those terms are used in §§56-232 and 234 of the Code of Virginia and in pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia, who take Public Authority Service from the Company with maximum demands exceeding 25 KW per month for more that two (2) months during the past twelve (12) months, but less than 1,000 KW per month. When a customer being served under this Schedule establishes or exceeds a normal maximum requirement of 1,000 KW per month, the customer will be placed on the appropriate L.P.S.-T.O.D.P.A. Schedule. MONTHLY RATE Schedule OATT Retail Code Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Total 375 Secondary Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 50.00 50.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 3.20 1.50 0.39 3.70 8.79 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) 0.26 -- 0.39 3.70 4.35 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 0.583 ...... 0.583 Maximum Energy Charge (C/KWH) 5.114 2.116 0.550 5.220 13.000 376 Primary Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 125.00 125.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 3.16 1.46 0.38 2.87 7.87 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) .... 0.20 2.87 3.07 . Energy Charge (C/KWH) 0.565 ...... 0.565 Maximum Energy Charge (C/KWH) 5.609 2.291 0.596 4.504 13.000 377 Subtransmission Voltage: ~ Customer Charge ($) ...... 125.00 125.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 3.08 1.41 0.37 1.97 6.83 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) --' .... 1.67 1.67 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 0.550 ...... 0.550 Maximum Energy Charge (C/KWH) 6.263 2.533 0.665 3.539 13.000 Issued: August 28, 2002 Effective: August 28, 2002 (Non-prorated) APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY d/b/a American Electric Power PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE L.G.S.P.A. (Large General Service - Public Authority) (continued) 2nd Revision of Sheet No. 4-2 MONTHLY RATE (Cont'd) Schedule OATT Retail Code Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Total Transmission Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 125.00 125.00 Demand charge (S/KW) 3.04 1.40 0.36 1.68 6.48 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) ...... 1.28 1.28 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 0.540 ...... 0.540 Maximum Energy Charge (C/KWH) 6.501 2.645 0.680 3.174 13.000 Applicable to customers 300 KW or greater: Distribution Reactive Demand Charge for each KVAR of leading or lagging reactive demand in excess of 50% of the KW metered demand .... $0.75 per KVAR Generation Levelized Fuel Factor .................................... 1.300¢ per KWH MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM CHARGES Bills computed under the above rate are subject to the operation of Minimum and Maximum Charge provisions as follows: (a) Minimum Charge - For demand accounts up to 100 KW - the Customer Charge and all applicable adjustments. For demand accounts over 100 KW - the sum of the Customer Charge, the product of the Demand Charge and the monthly billing demand, and all applicable adjustments. (b) Maximum Charge - The sum of the Customer Charge, the product of the Maximum Energy Charge and the metered energy, and all applicable adjustments. This provision shall not reduce 'the charge below the amount specified in the Minimum Charge provision above, (a). PAYMENT Bills are due upon presentation and payable by mail, checkless payment plan, electronic payment plan, or at authorized payment agents of the Company by the next bill date. On all accounts not so paid, a charge of 1½% per month will be applied to any account balances not received by the Company by the next bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills promptly after the billing date, the due date will be extended accordingly. The customer may designate its billing address. Issued: August 22, 2003 Pursuant to Order Dated July 25, 2003 Case No. PUE-2003-00286 Effective: August 1, 2003 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Sheet No. 4-3 d/b/a American Electric Power PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 18 SCHEDULE L.G.S.P.A. (Large General Service - Public Authority) (continued) MEASUREMENT AND DETERMINATION OF BILLING DEMAND The billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the single highest 15-minute peak in KW as registered during the month by a demand meter or indicator. For accounts over 100 KW, the monthly billing demand established hereunder shall not be less than 60% of the greater of (a) the customer's contract capacity in excess of 100 KW, or (b) the customer's highest previously established monthly billing demand during the past 11 months in excess of 100 KW. For accounts 300 KW or greater, the reactive demand in KVAR shall be taken each month as the single highest 15-minute peak in KVAR as registered during the month by a demand meter or indicator. Billing demands shall be rounded to the nearest whole KW and KVAR. OPTIONAL TIME-OF-DAY PROVISION Available to customers who operate primarily during the off-peak period (as set forth below) and request the installation of time-of-day metering in order to receive service under this provision. The customer shall be required to pay any necessary additional metering cost. For the purpose of this Provision, the monthly billing demand as defmed above shall be determined during the on-peak period. The off-peak excess demand shall be the amount by which the demand created during the off-peak period exceeds the monthly billing demand. For the purpose of this provision, the on-peak billing period is defined as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., local time, for all weekdays, Monday through Friday. The off-peak billing period is defined as 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., local time, for all weekdays, all hours of the day on Saturdays and Sundays, and the legally observed holidays of New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. METERED VOLTAGE ADJUSTMENT The rates set forth in this Schedule are based upon delivery and measurement of energy at the same voltage. When the measurement of energy occurs at a voltage different than the delivery voltage, the measurement of energy will be compensated to the delivery voltage. At the sole discretion of the Company, such compensation may be achieved through the use of loss compensating equipment, the use of formulas to calculate losses, or the application of multipliers to the metered quantities. In such cases, metered KWH, KW and KVAR will be adjusted for billing purposes. In cases where multipliers are used to adjust metered usage, the adjustment shall be as follows: (a) Measurements taken at the low-side ora customer-owned transformer will be multiplied by 1.01. (b) Measurements taken at the high-side of a Company-owned transformer will be multiplied by 0.98. TER/~ The term shall be as contained in the agreement for electric service, between the Company and each city, county, and town governmental authority, for service after July 1, 2002. Further written agreements may be required pursuant to the Extension of Service provision of that agreement. A contract capacity will be required for customers with annual average demands greater than 500 KW. The Company shall not be required to supply capacity in excess of that contract capacity except by mutual agreement. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Schedule is subject to all terms and conditions contained in the agreement for electric service between the Company and each city, county, and town governmental authority for service after July 1, 2002. Customers with cogeneration and/or small power production facilities shall take service by special agreement with the Company. Issued: August 28, 2002 Effective: August 28, 2002 (Non-prorated) APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Sheet No. 5-1 d/b/a American Electric Power PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARIFF NO. 9 SCHEDULE L.P.S.-T.O.D.P.A. (Large Power Service Time-of-Day - Public Authority) AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE Available for general service to municipal corporations and state governmental entities, excluding Public Housing Authorities and the Commonwealth of Virginia, as those terms are used in §§56-232 and 234 of the Code of Virginia and in pertinent decisions of the Supreme Court of Virginia, with normal maximum demands greater than 1,000 KW who take Public Authority Service fxom the Company. Each customer shall establish a contract capacity for a definite amount of electrical capacity in kilowatts which shall be sufficient to meet the customer's normal maximum requirements for the on-peak period and a definite amount of electrical capacity in kilowatts which shall be sufficient to meet normal maximum requirements for the off- peak period, but in no case shall the contract capaci .ty be less than 1,000 KW. The Company shall not be required m supply capacity in excess of the on-peak and off-peak capacities. Contract capacities shall be in multiples of 100 KW. MONTHLY RATE Schedule OATT Retail Code Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Total 301 Secondary Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 320.00 320.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 4.70 1.55 0.65 2.41 9.31 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) 2.02 -- 0.65 2.41 5.08 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 0.267 ...... 0.267 307 Primary Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 530.00 530.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 4.56 1.50 0.64 1.64 8.34 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) 1.31 -- 0.64 1.64 3.59 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 0.261 ...... 0.261 Subtransmission Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 530.00 530.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 4.39 1.45 0.61 0.75 7.20 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) 0.59 -- 0.61 0.75 1.95 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 0.255 ...... 0.255 Issued: August 28, 2002 Effective: August 28, 2002 (Non-prorated) APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY 2nd Revision of d/b/a American Electric Power Sheet No. 5-2 PUBLIC AUTHORITY TARH~F NO. 9 SCHEDULE L.P.S.-T.O.D.P.A. (Large Power Service Time-of-Day - Public Authority) (continued) MONTHLY RATE (Cont'd) Schedule OATT Retail Code Generation Transmission Transmission Distribution Total Transmission Voltage: Customer Charge ($) ...... 530.00 530.00 Demand Charge (S/KW) 4.37 1.43 0.55 .48 6.83 Off-Peak Excess Demand Charge (S/KW) 0.47 -- 0.55 0.48 150 Energy Charge (C/KWH) 0.251 ...... 0.251 Distribution Reactive Demand Charge for each KVAR of leading or lagging reactive demand in excess of 50% of the KW metered demand ................... $0.75 per KVAR Generation Levelized Fuel Factor ................................................. 1.300¢ per KWH MINIMUM CHARGE This Schedule is subject to a minimum monthly charge equal to the sum of the Customer Charge, the product of the Demand Charge and the monthly billing demand, and all applicable adjustments. PAYMENT Bills are due upon presentation and payable by mail, checkless payment plan, electronic payment plan, or at authorized payment agents of the Company by the next bill date. On all accounts not so paid, a charge of llA% per month will be applied to any account balances not received by the Company by the next bill date. If the Company fails to mail bills promptly after the billing date, the due date will be extended accordingly. The customer may designate its billing address. MEASUREMENT AND DETERMINATION OF BILLING DEMAND The billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the single highest 30-minute peak in KW as registered during the month in the on-peak period by a demand meter or indicator. The monthly billing demand established hereunder shall not be less than 60% of the greater of (a) the customer's on-peak contract capacity, or (b) the customer's highest previously established monthly billing demand during the past 11 months. The off-peak billing demand in KW shall be taken each month as the single highest 30-minute peak in KW as registered during the month in the off-peak period by a demand meter or indicator. The monthly off-peak billing demand established hereunder shall not be less than 60% of the greater of (a) the customer's off-peak contract capacity or (b) the customer's highest previously established off-peak monthly billing demand during the past 11 months. The off-peak excess demand shall be the amount by which the monthly off-peak billing demand exceeds the monthly billing demand. The reactive demand in KVAR shall be taken each month as the single highest 30-minute peak in KVAR as registered during the month by a demand meter or indicator. Billing demands shall be rounded to the nearest whole KW and KVAR. Issued: August 22, 2003 Pursuant to Order Dated July 25, 2003 Case No. PUE-2003-00286 Effective: August 1, 2003 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY d/b/a American Electric Power PUBLIC AUTHORITY NO. 9 SCHEDULE L.P.S.-T.O.D.P.A. (Large Power Service Time-of-Day - Public Authority) (continued) Sheet No. 5-3 MEASUREMENT .hIND DETERMINATION OF BILLING DEMAND (Cont'd) For the purpose of this Schedule, the on-peak billing period is defined as 7 a.m. to 8 p.m., local time, for all weekdays, Monday through Friday. The off-peak billing period is defined as 8 p.m. to 7 a.m., local time, for all weekdays, all hours of the ay on Saturdays and Sundays, and the legally observed holidays of New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. METERED VOLTAGE ADJUSTMENT The rates set forth in this Schedule are based upon the delivery and measurement of energy at the same vokage. When the measurement of energy occurs at a voltage different than the delivery voltage, the measurement of energy will be compensated to the delivery voltage. At the sole discretion of the Company, such compensation may be achieved through the use of loss compensating equipment, the use of formulas to calculate losses, or the application of multipliers to the metered quantities. In such cases, metered KWH, KW and KVAR will be adjusted for billing purposes. In cases where multipliers are used to adjust metered usage, the adjustment shall be as follows: (a) Measurements taken at the low-side ora customer-owned transformer will be multiplied by 1.01. (b) Measurements taken at the high-side of a Company-owned transformer will be multiplied by 0.98. TERM The term shall be as contained in the agreement for electric service, between the Company and each city, county, and town governmental authority, for service after July 1, 2002. Further written agreements may be required pursuant to the Extension of Service provision of that agreement. The Company shall not be required to supply capacity in excess of the contract capacity except by mutual agreement. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Schedule is subject to all terms and conditions contained in the agreement for electric service between the Company and each city, county, and town governmental authority for service after July 1, 2002. Customers with cogeneration and/or small power production facilities shall take service by special agreement with the Company. Issued: August 28, 2002 Effective: August 28, 2002 (Non-prorated) APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Exhibit CC 2nd Revision of Sheet No. 16-1 AVAILABILITY OF SERVICE VA. S.C.C. TARIFF NO. 18 SCHEDULE O.L. (Outdoor Lighting) Available for outdoor lighting to individual customers who take Standard Service from the Company and are located outside areas covered by municipal street lighting systems. MONTHLY RATE A. Overhead Lighting Service For each of the following, the Company will provide lamp, photo-electric relay control equipment, luminaire and upsweep warm not over 6 feet in length, and shall mount same on an existing wood distribution pole which is connected to secondary facilities of the Company. Base Rate per Month ($)* Generation Nominal Approx. Levelized Schedule Lamp Initial Fuel Code Type of Lamp Wattage Lumens Generation Distribution Total (S/month) 094 High Pressure Sodium 100 9,500 0.12 7.37 7.49 0.52 097 High Pressure Sodium 200 22,000 0.25 8.46 8.71 1.10 098 High Pressure Sodium 400 50,000 0.50 9.40 9.90 2.17 High Pressure Sodium- 127 Flood 250 28,500 0.31 9.57 9.88 1.34 High Pressure Sodium- 109 Flood 400 50,000 0.50 11.79 12.29 2.17 093 Mercury Vapor 175 8,500 0.21 6.25 6.46 0.94 096 Mercury Vapor** 250** 13,000'* 0.30 8.14 8.44 1.30 095 Mercury Vapor 400 23,000 0.47 9.50 9.97 2.05 I34 Metal Halide-Flood 175 13,000 0.21 8.83 9.04 0.94 102 Metal Halide-Flood 400 36,000 0.47 8.77 9.24 2.05 131 Metal Halide-Flood 1000 110,000 1.13 25.06 26.19 4.92 * OATT Transmission and Retail Transmission Charges are equal to $0.00. ** Effective August 28, 1990, the 250 watt 13,000 lumen mercury vapor lamp will no longer be available for new installations or for repair or replacement of existing units. When other additional overhead facilities are to be installed by the Company, the customer will, in addition to the above monthly charge, pay in advance the installation cost of such additional overhead facilities extending from the nearest or most suitable pole of the Company to the point designated by the customer for the installation of said lamp, except that the customer may, for the following facilities only, elect in lieu of such payment for the installation cost, to pay the following: For each additional pole and overhead wire span not over 150 feet: Wood Pole Aluminum Pole Fiberglass Pole Issued: July 25, 2003 Pursuant to Order Dated July 23, 2003? c~ Nh. PlI1Z,2flfl~-flfl2g6 $3.50 per month $7.50 per month $8.50 per month Effective August 1, 2003 APPALACIIlAN POWER COMPANY VA. S.C.C. TARIFF NO. 18 SCHEDULE O.L. (Outdoor Lighting) (continued) 2nd Revision of Sheet No. 16-2 MONTHLY RATE (Cont'd) B. Post-Top Lighting Service For each of the following, the Company will provide lamp, photo-electric relay control, post-top luminaire, post and installation (the type and height of which will be consistent with the Company's construction standards), including underground wiring for a distance of 30 feet from the Company's existing secondary facilities. Base Rate per Month* Generation Nominal Approx. Levelized Schedule Lamp Initial Fuel Code Type of Lamp Wattage Lumens Generation Distribution Total (S/Month) 099 Mercury Vapor 175 8,500 0.21 7.46 7.67 0.94 133 High Pressure Sodium 50 4,000 0.06 16.51 16.57 0.25 i06 High Pressure Sodium 70 6,300 0.08 11.29 11.37 0.37 111 High Pressure Sodium 100 9,500 0.12 11.26 11.38 0.52 103 High Pressure Sodium 250 28,500 0.31 11.40 11.71 1.34 104 High Pressure Sodium 400 50,000 0.50 12.10 12.60 2.17 128 High Pressure Sodium-Flood 250 28,500 0.31 31.44 31.75 1.34 124 High Pressure Sodium-Flood 400 50,000 0.50 12.10 12.60 2.17 105 Metal Halide 400 36,000 0.47 10.60 11.07 2.05 135 Metal Halide-Flood 175 13,000 0.21 22.94 23.15 0.94 126 Metal Halide-Flood 400 36,000 0.47 10.59 11.06 2.05 132 Metal Halide-Flood 1000 110,000 1.13 50.28 51.41 4.92 *OATT Transmission and Retail Transmission Charges are equal to $0.00. When the customer's service requires an underground circuit longer than 30 feet from existing secondary facilities for post- top lighting service, the customer will pay to the Company, in advance, a charge for the additional length of underground circuit. Company trenches and backfills: Customer trenches and backfills entire trench* (including the first 30 feet): $4.00 per foot for the length of underground circuit in excess of 30 feet. $1.00 per foot for the length of underground circuit in excess of 150 feet. * Trench must comply with all Company and local standards. Issued: July 25, 2003 Pursuant to Order Dated July 23, 2003 Case No. PUE-2003-00286 Effective: August 1, 2003 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Sheet No. 16-3 VA. S.C.C. TARIFF NO. 18 SCIt~EDULE o.n (Outdoor Lighting) (continued) MONTHLY RATE (Cont'd) The customer will, where applicable, be subject to the following conditions in addition to paying the monthly charges set forth above: 1. Customers requiring service where rock or other adverse soil conditions are encountered will be fumished service provided the excess cost of trenching and backfilling (cost in excess of $4.00 per foot of the total trench length) is paid to the Company by the customer. 2. In the event the customer requires that an underground circuit be located beneath a driveway or other pavement, the Company may require the customer to install protective conduit in the paved areas. PAYMENT For all residential customers with outdoor lights, bills are due upon presentation and payable by mail, checkless payment plan, electronic payment plan, or at authorized payment agents of the Company within twenty (20) days of the bill preparation date. A charge of 1½% per month will be applied to any account balances, excluding local consumer utility taxes, not received by the Company by the next bill preparation date. For all other customers with outdoor lights, bills are due upon presentation. Any amount due and not received by mail, checkless payment plan, electronic payment plan, or at authorized payment agents of the Company within twenty (20) days of the bill preparation date shall be subject to a delayed payment charge of 1½%. This charge shall not be applicable to local consumer utility taxes. HOURS OF LIGHTING All lamps shall burn from one-half hour after sunset until 0ne-half hour before sunrise, every night and all night, burning approximately 4,000 hours per annum. OWNERSHIP OF FACILITIES All facilities necessary for service, including fixtures, controls, poles, transformers, secondaries, lamps and other appurtenances, shall be owned and maintained by the Company. All service and necessary maintenance will be performed only during the regular scheduled working hours of the Company. The Company shall be allowed 48 hours after notification by the customer to replace all bumed-out lamps. TERM Written agreemems may be required pursuant to the Extension of Service provision of the Company's Terms and Conditions of Standard Service. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Schedule is subject to the Company's Terms and Conditions of Standard Service. Issued: December 28, 2001 Pursuant to Final Order Dated December 18, 2001 Case No. PUE010011 Effective: January 1, 2002 APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY Sheet No. 16-4 VA. S.C.C. TARIFF NO. 18 SCHEDULE O.L. (Outdoor Lighting) (continued) TOTAL MONTHLY ENERGY CONSUMPTION 1N KILOWATT HOURS PER SINGLE LAMP ALL NIGHT LAMPS (Adjusted for Photocell Operation to Total 4000 Hour Operation Per Year) TYPE OF LAMP, APPROXIMATE LUMENS, & Tot~ NOMINAL WATTAGE WaRs Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MERCURY VAPOR 7,560 L 8,500 L 175W 216 91 76 76 65 58 52 55 63 69 81 86 92 10,700 L 13,000 L 250W 301 126 106 106 90 81 72 77 88 97 113 119 129 19,100 L 23,000 L 400W 474 199 167 167 142 127 114 121 138 152 178 188 203 33,600 L 43,000 L 700W 803 337 283 283 241 215 193 205 234 257 302 318 344 45,500 L 63,000 L 1,000W 1,135 477 400 400 340 304 272 291 331 363 427 449 486 SODIUM VAPOR 3,600 L 4,000 L 50W 58 24 20 20 18 15 14 15 17 19 22 23 25 5,670 L 6,300 L 70W 86 36 30 30 26 23 21 22 25 28 32 34 37 8,550 L 9,500 L 100W 121 51 43 43 36 32 29 31 35 39 45 48 52 14,400 L 16,000 L 150W 176 74 62 62 53 47 42 45 51 57 66 70 75 19,800 L 22,000 L 200W 253 106 89 89 76 68 61 65 74 81 95 100 108 25,600 L 28,500 L 250W 309 130 109 109 93 83 74 79 90 99 116 122 132 33,300 L 37,000 L 310W 365 153 128 128 110 98 88 93 107 117 137 145 156 45,000 L 50,000 L 400W 500 210 176 176 150 134 120 128 146 160 188 198 214 126,000 L 140,000 L 1,000W 1,135 477 400 400 340 304 272 291 331 363 427 449 486 METAL HALIDE 10,350 L 13,000 L 175W 216 91 76 76 65 58 52 55 63 69 81 86 92 17,000 L 20,500 L 250W 301 127 106 106 90 81 72 77 88 96 113 119 129 28,800 L 36,000 L 400W 474 199 167 167 142 127 114 121 138 152 178 188 203 88,000 L 110,000 L 1,000W 1,135 477 400 400 340 304 272 291 331 363 427 449 486 Issued: December 28, 2001 Pursuant to Final Order Dated December 18, 2001 Case No. PUE010011 Effective: January 1, 2002 FAX (434) 972-4126 Og-O3-O4A04:13 RCVD 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 March 5, 2004 Brian G. Scruby P.O. Box 83 Greenwood VA 22943 CORRECTED LETTER 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: This official determination of development rights and parcels replaces the determination for these parcels that is dated January 20, 2004. This letter contains a correction on page 4. Tax Map 55, Parcel 14 has the potential to create five lots using development rights and one additional parcel containing at least 21 acres. 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 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 54, 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 I:\DEPT~CZS\Determin of Parcel~2003 ACE~54-72A etc Brian Scruby.doc Brian Scruby March 5, 2004 Page 2 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. Deed Book 1868, 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 557 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, it was not legally separated. This finding is based on the Virginia Supreme Court's decision in Chesterfield County V. Stigall, 262 Va, 697 (2001). Sti_clall 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. I:\DEP'P, BCZS\Determin of Parcel~003 ACE--g54-72A etc Bdan Scruby.doc Brian Scruby March 5, 2004 Page 3 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. This analysis begins with Deed Book 210, page 588, dated October 15, 1930. This deed conveyed 7 ~,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. 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 Iotof 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. I:\DEPT~BOZS\Determin of Parcel~2003 ACEt54-72A et¢ Bdan Scruby.doc Brian Scruby March 5, 2004 Page 4 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. 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 TM-P Acreage Division rights for 21 Development rights acre minimum parcels TM 54-72A 1.1 0 0 TM 55~14 '43.510 1' (Corrected) 5 TM 69-39A 56.889 2 2 TOTAL 106.255 3* (Corrected) 7 Brian Scruby March 5, 2004 Page 5 Enclosed: 1980 and 2002 Tax Maps Gift deeds that conveyed fractional ownership interests I:\DEPT~BCZS\Determin of Parcel~003 ACE~,54-72A etc Brian 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 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% 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 I 1/27/99 Frances Brian 69 - 39 5,5% Deeds not in file but referenced in I 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 'i ., 6% 1385 - 289 2/10/94 6% 1458 - 318 3/9/95 6% 1458 - 327 3/9/95 6% 1'525- 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'J3etermin of Parcel~003 AC~54-72A etc Brian Scruby.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 March 2, 2004 Brian S. Ray Roger Ray and Associates 1717 1B Allied Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND PARCELS-Tax Map 135, Parcel 22F (W. A. Pace, Jr.) Section 10.3.1 Dear Ray: 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 135, Parcel 22F is a separate parcel with five (5) development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows: Our records indicate Tax Map 135, Parcel 22F contains 30.00 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 854, page 277. This analysis begins with the deed of record in Deed Book 200, page 457, dated April 4, 1928. This deed conveyed three tracts of land from Edward W. Scott, Jr. and Adeline C. Scott to Edward W. Scott, 3rd, Augusta R. Scott and F. Pierson Scott. The tracts contained 200 acres, 270 ¼ acres and 219 ~ acres; a total of 689.75 acres. Excepted from this transaction was a tract of 4 acres (TM 135-8) and five additional tracts of land that were previously off-conveyed. These five tracts are designated as Lots 8, 9, 5, 3 and 7 on a plat and subdivision attached to this deed made by John Boldddge. The deed makes clear that Lots 1,2, 4 and 6 on the Boldridge plat are conveyed with this transaction. On the basis of this deed, each of the nine lots shown on the Boldridge plat are determined to have been legal separate parcels at the time this deed was recorded. Tax Map 135, Parcel 22F is designated on the plat as Lot 4, containing 28.2 acres. The most recent deed for this parcel recorded prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance on December 10, 1980 is recorded in Deed Book 334, page 103, dated June 14, 1957. This deed conveyed 340 acres from Augusta Scott Morrill, Edward W. Scott I:\DEP~BCZS\Determin of Parcel\135-22F WA Pace.doc Brian S. Ray March 2, 2004 Page 2 and Mary D. Scott to F. Pierson Scott. The property is described as the same tracts of land aggregating some 369.55 acres, more or less, which was conveyed by the deed dated April 4, 1928 and recorded in Deed Book 200, page 457, with the exception, however, of a tract of 27.2 acres and a parcel of 2.13 acres. This transaction had no effect on the legal status of Lot 4 as shown on the Boldridge plat. On the basis of this deed, Lot 4, now identified as Tax Map 135, Parcel 22F retained its status as a separate parcel and is determined to be a lot of record with five (5) development rights. Deed Book 854, page 277, dated September 27,1985, conveyed seven tracts of land from Jefferson National Bank, Executor u/w of F. Pierson Scott to Pierson Scott Morrill, Daniel Drake Morrill and Elizabeth Morrill Peters. Among these is Parcel 6 described, in part, as all that certain tract carried on the land books as Tax Map 135, Parcel 22, said tract containing 329.407 acres, more or less, and being part of the same property which was conveyed to F. Pierson Scott by deeds dated April 4, 1928 and June 14, 1957, recorded in Deed Book 200, page 457 and Deed Book 334, page 103, respectively. It is determined that the reference to Deed Book 200, page 457 and Deed Book 334, page 103 in this description preserves the separate identity of Parcel 22F that was previously designated as Lot 4 with 28.2 acres on the Boldridge plat. Deed Book 1746, page 735, dated June 10, 1998, conveyed 104.95 acres from Pierson Scott Morrill & Ann H. Morrill to Daniel Drake Morrill and Elizabeth Morrill Peters. The property is described, in part, as all that certain tract of land shown on a plat of Robert L. Lum, dated June 4, 1998, that is attached to this deed. It is further described in the deed as being a portion of property designated as Lot 6 conveyed by the deed dated June 12, 1984 and recorded in Deed Book 854, page 277. This plat divided what was then shown as a single parcel, identified as 22 on Tax Map 135 into three tracts; Lot A containing 104.95 acres, a residual containing 224.46 acres and a residue containing 30 acres. The plat noted, "three development rights to be trans, with this tract, two to remain with residual north of Rt. 627." The 30 ac +/- residue north of Route 627 is in the location that was shown as Lot 4 on the Boldridge plat and is now identified as Lot 22F. The 104.95 acres is comprised of Lots 1 and 2 on the Boldridge plat containing 58.9 acres and 46.5 acres respectively. Although this subdivision plat assumed that Lots 1, 2 and 4 were part of one parcel, it did not legally combine those separate parcels because the deed refers to Deed Book 854, page 277. Therefore, it is determined that Parcel 22F retained its status as a lot of record with five development rights. Deed Book 2668, page 691, dated December 18, 2003, conveyed 30 acres from Pierson Scott Morrill, Daniel Drake Morrill and Elizabeth Morrill Peters to W.A. Pace, Jr. The property, identified in Schedule A as Tax Map 135, Parcel 22F, is described, in I:\DEP'f~BCZS~Determin of Parcel\135-22F WA Pace.doc Brian S. Ray March 2, 2004 Page 3 part, as a portion of the property designated as Parcel 6 in the deed dated September 27, 1985 and recorded in Deed Book 854, page 277. This transaction had no effect on the legal status or development rights of Parcel 22F. 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 dght 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: Gay Carver, Real Estate Department Ella Carey, Clerk Board of Supervisors Reading Files 135-22F, 22D, 22D1 & 22D2 W.A. Pace, Jr. 3134 Avebury Lane Keswick, VA 22947 I:~DEPT~BCZS\Determin of Parcel\135-22F WA Pace.doc COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 February 19, 2004 Kurt Gloeckner Gloeckner Engineering, Inc. 2246 Ivy Road Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: SP-03-77 Ron Martin Appliances Parking Lot Expansion (Sign #36) and SDP-03-58 Ron Martin Appliances; Tax Map 45C, Parcel 02-1B Dear Mr. Gloeckner: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 3, 2004, by a vote of 6:0, took the following actions. SP-03-77 Ron Martin Appliances Parking Lot Expansion - Recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors subject to the following conditions: 1. A final site plan shall be submitted for approval, which shall be in general accord with the revised plan that shows improvements on Tax Map 45C Parcel 02-1 B, dated January 28, 2004. 2. At least one (1) sign shall be posted in the parking area that identifies the use as parking for the adjacent commercial use only (Tax Map 45C Parcel 02-1A & 02-1), with size and location of the sign to be determined and approved by staff. 3. The parking area shall be used for customer parking only, which shall be stated on the sign per condition #2. Delivery and other commercial vehicles shall not be parked or stored in the parking area for loading, unloading or any other purpose. 4. Additional landscaping shall be installed and maintained within the 20' buffer, as necessary to provide screening to complete a double staggared row of evergreen trees along the east side of the property. 5. A second 10'xl0' concrete dumpster pad shall be constructed adjacent to the 10'xl0' concrete dumpster pad area shown on the plan dated January 28, 2004. The resulting 10'x20' dumpster area shall be screened with a th tee (3) sided opaque fence and additional landscaping per the direction of staff. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 17. 2004. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted tothe Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days pdor to your scheduled hearing date. · SDP-03-58 Ron Martin Appliances - Approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Additional screening on the east side of the property both under the existing trees and in the gaps under the direction of staff to provide a satisfactorily level of screening of the residences on that side. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincer~e~, ..~ ....~ . '" ~.,., ,, __ ...'~ '.,~,~ £.~ FZ~ncis MacCall Planner Cc: Ella Carey Ameiia McCuiley Jack Kelsey Steve Allshouse Karen Smith STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: FRANCIS H MACCALL FEBRUARY 3, 2004 MARCH 17, 2004 SP 2003-077 Ron Martin Stand-Alone Parking SDP 2003-058 Ron Martin Ma]or Site Plan Amendment Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to build a stand-alone parking lot, to serve Ron Martin Appliance located on Seminole Trail, Route 29 North. (Attachment A) Petition: The petition is for approval of a special use permit, in accordance with Section 24.2.2.12 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow stand-alone parking, and for approval by the Planning Commission of a buffer disturbance waiver. (Attachments A & E) The property, described as Tax Map 45C Parcel 02-lB is .77 acres, and is zoned HC, Highway Commercial. The property is located on located Woodbrook Drive [Route # 1417], approximately .1 miles from the intersection of Seminole Trail [Route 29N] and Woodbrook Drive, in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Community Service in Neighborhood 1. (Attachments B & C.) Character of the Area: The property is located on Woodbrook Drive near the intersection of US Route 29. The residential subdivision known as Woodbrook abuts this development to the east. The Woodbrook Shopping Center is located south across Woodbrook Drive, and Rio Hill Shopping Center and Lowe's are across US Route 29 to the west. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions, and the buffer waiver with conditions. Planning and Zoning History: The history of the parcel is as follows: 1991: The original site plan for the Ron Martin building was approved. This plan involved three parcels, one being the subject parcel since the entrance was shared off of Woodbrook Drive. 1995: A site plan amendment of the original plan was approved to add the Eways building, but did not affect the subject parcel. VIOLATIONS: Multiple violations have occurred regarding the site plan mainly concerning the proper location of a dumpster. The site plan currently being reviewed will remedy this by approving a dumpster location on the property. Comprehensive Plan and The Neighborhood Model: Requests for special use permits in the Development Areas are assessed for conformity with the Neighborhood Model and the Land Use Plan. The Land Use Plan shows this area as Community Service. With the current appliance/furniture store located in the at the corner of Woodbrook Drive and Seminole Trail, the proposed use of a stand-alone parking lot for that business would not be a departure from the current land use and character of the area. The ways in which the proposed project meets the twelve principles for development in accordance with the Neighborhood Model are provided below: ~ Pedestrian Orientation -Not applicable. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths -Not applicable. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - This site already has interconnections to adjacent parcels. Parks and Open Space-Not applicable. Neighborhood Centers -Not applicable. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale -Not applicable. Relegated Parking - The proposed location of the parking is relegated from Route 29, but not from Woodbrook Drive. In the proposed location it works best for circulation. It is located across from an existing internal entrance. If it were located more directly behind the existing Ron Martin building then it would be pushed up against the entire property .line shared with the residential parcels and have an entrance further back that would conflict with truck traffic in the rear. Mixture of Uses - Not applicable. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability - Not applicable. Redevelopment Rather than Abandonment - Not applicable. Site Planning that Respects Terrain - This is a relatively flat area that will require little disturbance. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas - Not applicable Engineering Analysis: The County's Engineering staff has reviewed this request for engineering issues related to health, safety, and welfare requirements. The Engineering Department is recommending approval with final engineering comments being addressed with a site plan amendment. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant has shown that with the current use of the former Eways building and the Ron Martin building along with the proposed infill expansion between those buildings that there would be a need for the additional parking. The total number of proposed spaces has also limited the size of any future building that may in the future be proposed on the subject parcel. (Attachment A & D) SPECIAL USE PERMIT: Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below requires that special use permits be assessed as follows: 2 Will the use be of substantial detriment to adjacent property_? There will not be a substantial detriment to the adjacent properties with proper screening. At this time the applicant has not proposed a building for this parcel. If a building and parking were proposed, which would eliminate the need for a special use permit, staff would more than likely approve the plan with the appropriate screening and buffer. There are many residential properties that are adjacent to commercial uses that have been appropriately screened and buffered, and staff sees this no differently as the others. Will the character of the zoning district change with this use? The character of the zoning district will not change with this use. Will the use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance? The purpose and intent of the HC, Highway Commercial zoning district is stated as follows in the ordinance; "HC districts are hereby created and may hereafter be established by amendment to the zoning map to permit development of commercial establishments, other than shopping centers, primarily oriented to highway locations rather than to central business concentrations .... It is further intended that this district shall be for the purpose of limiting sprawling strip commercial development by providing sites with adequate frontage and depth to permit controlled access to public streets." The applicant has expanded his appliance/furniture business into the former Eways building and has proposed to connect that building with the original Ron Martin building. At this time he is unable to purchase the subject parcel and develop it as part of the existing parcel. There have been recent changes in the Zoning Ordinance regarding parking for this type of business and the review of this proposal by the Zoning Department has determined that the parking would be needed for the infill development proposed to support the use on that property. (Attachment D) Will the use be in harmony with the uses permitted by fight in the district? The proposed use will not restrict permitted uses on surrounding properties. Staff does believe that this use will be in harmony with the other uses permitted in the district. Will the use comply with the additional regulations provided in Section 5.0 of this ordinance? The additional regulations provided in Section 5.1.41 require a site planbe approved for the use. There is a site plan amendment that staff is currently reviewing and should be able to recommend for approval. Will the public health, safety and general welfare of the community be protected if the use is approved? The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community is protected through the special use permit process which assures that uses approved by special use permit are appropriate in the location requested. SITE PLAN: Staff should be able to complete an administrative review of the site plan once the special use permit and buffer waiver are acted upon. ~ Buffer Waiver: Section 21.7.3 states, Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. Except, the commission may waive this requirement in a particular case where it has been demonstrated that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided that: a. Minimum screening requirements are met; and b. Existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored. Some screening shrubs are necessary for parking spaces that are adjacent to public roads and residential property. There is a line of boxwoods proposed that would need to be placed in the 20' buffer on the plan. There is also screening fence along the entire property line shared with the residential lots. (Attachment A) Staff recommends approval of the requests to disturb the buffer. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. Provisions for appropriate screening have been provided. Staff has not identified factors which would be unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS SPECIAL USE PERMIT: Staff recommends approval of the special use permit request to allow stand- alone parking with the following conditions: 1. A final site plan shall be submitted for approval, which shall be in general accord with the revised plan that shows improvements on Tax Map 45C Parcel 02-lB, dated January 28, 2004. 2. At least one sign shall be posted in the parking area that identifies the use as parking for the adjacent commercial use only (Tax Map 45C Parcel 02-lA & 02-1), with size and location of the sign to be determined and approved by staff. SITE PLAN: Staff recommends approval of the buffer waiver. ATTACHMENTS: A - Site plan B - Detail Map C - Location Map D - Zoning Comment E - Applicants Waiver Request FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 ATTACHMENT D TTD I434) 972-4012 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Francis MacCall, Planner Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration ~ John January 26, 2004 SP-2003-077 Parking Lot Expansion Ron Martin Appliances SDP-2003-083 Ron Martin Appliances dated October 7, 2003 Revised December 15, 2003 Revised January 12, 2004 Special Permit Comments: Stand alone parking became a use allowed by special permit in this zoning district on February 5, 2003. The following comments address the request for this use: The revised site plan that accompanies this application now appears to justify the request because 2,800 square feet in the existing Ron Martin building is proposed for retail rather than furniture sales. Based on the plan revised on December 15, 2003, we calculate the total parking required for the former Eways building, the existing Ron Martin building, the proposed expansion and four delivery vans is 79 spaces. The plan shows 66 existing spaces on Parcels 1 and iA, 10 spaces that straddle the line between Parcels lA and lB and 14 spaces on Parcel lB for a total of 90 spaces. The spaces shown on the plan that are located on Parcel 93B are not included in this total. The plan demonstrates that the parking on Parcels 1 and lA can not support the proposed uses on those parcels. The provision of the stand alone spaces addresses the current short fall and will also allow a wider range of uses on these parcels in the future. Section 4.12.4 (a) of the new parking ordinance requires that the number of provided spaces not exceed the number of required spaces by more than 20%. The addition of 24 stand alone spaces provided on Parcel lB results in 11 "excess" spaces, an increase of 13.9%. Therefore, the proposed plan meets that standard for the maximum number of allowed spaces. This department recommended that an area be designated for temporary sales. These 11 spaces serve that purpose. GLOECKNER ENGINEERING/SURVEYING, INC. Engineers - Surveyors - Land Planners Kurt M. Gloeckner, P.E., ELS. President ATTAcI-/M~NT/~ January 21, 2004 Francis McCall, Planner County of Albemarle 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Vkginia 22902 Re: Ron Martin Site Plan Expansion/Added Parking Dear Francis, In order to allow for planting additional trees and shrubs in the buffer area, I request a waiver for this activity referring to Section 21.7.3 of the Code. Also since our parking is so close to the buffer a slight disturbance may occur within the buffer. The waiver request should also cover this possibility. If this should occur all disturbed areas will be restored to their original condition i.e., replanted. Thank you for an anticipated favorable response to this matter. Sincerely, Kurt M. Gloeckner, P.E., P.L.S. President KMG:tpm cc: Logan Martin 2246 Ivy Road, Suite 5 o Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 o Tel: (434) 971-1591 * Fax: (434) 293-7612 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DepartmerF of Planning & Community Development 401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 February 10, 2004 Kishore Persaud 1150 Pepsi Place Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP 2003- 080 Tower at Pepsi Place (Sign #40, 44); Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Parcel 2A, Dear Mr, Persaud: The Albemarle C,: ", ~.'.'.:' ".'": ~ ' ~mission, at its meeting on February 3, 2004, by a vote of 6:0, recommended approval of the ,; ....· .... : "to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The tower shall be located and built as shown in the applicant's submittal packet entitled Tower 1150 Peps~ Place. initialed 1/28/04 and included as Attachment B. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site drawings showing the proposed construction of the tower. These plans shall include to-scale elevations showing the tower profile and the location of each antenna. Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. The tower structure shall not exceed 60 feet in height. The width of each side of the tower shall not exceed 30 inches at its base, and 22 inches at the top. Attachments shall be shall be limited to three (3) dish antennas not to exceed 6 feet in diameter and the six (6) antennas detailed in the applicant's submittal packet included as Attachment B. No additional antennas that support services other than radio broadcasting Shall be attached to extend above a total height of 60 feet on the tower. The tower, antennas, dishes and all other equipment attached above the roof of the existing building shall be painted a nomreflective, dull brown'color that reduces its contrast with the sky and blends with the backdrop of trees. No guy wires shall be permitted. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within (90) days of the date its use for radio broadcasting services is discontinued. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on March 17, 2004. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5823, Sincerely, Stephen Waller Senior Planner sw/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Steve Allshouse Clear Channel Radio Pepsi Cola Bottling COmpany of Central Virgima Jack Kelsey STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: STEPHEN B. WALLER, AICP FEBRUARY 3, 2004 MARCH 10, 2004 SP 03-080 PEPSI PLACE TOWER Applicant's Proposal: This proposal is for the construction of a radio broadcast facility using a 60-foot tall tower structure mounted with six antennas and three grid-styled dish antennas for enhancement of its radio broadcast capacities (Attachment A). Two of the dish antennas would be 4 feet in diameter, while the third would be 6 feet in diameter. The proposed tower woUld have widths of 2-1/2 feet at its. base and 1-foot, 10 inches at its top and would be attached to the side of an existing building (Attachment B). The property, described as Tax Map 61W, Section 2, Parcel 2A, contains 1.32 acres zoned C-l, Commercial (Attachment C). This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District, at the intersection of Greenbrier Drive [State Route 866] and Pepsi 'Place [State Route 1340], approximately 1/2 mile east of the U.S. Route 29 North. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Community Service' in Neighborhood 2. Petition: This petition is for a special use permit to allow the construction of a new tower and its related transmission facilities., in accordance with Section 22.2.2(2) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows radio wave transmission and relay towers in the C-1 zoning district. According to the applicant's request, approval of these facilities will enable the six (6) local Clear Channel radi° stations that operate inside the Pepsi Place office building to broadcast a direct wireless signal to existing facilities on Carter's Mountain. This would replace the current system, which sends broadcast signals from the radio stations to facilities on Carter's Mountain bY way of telephone lines, to outlying facilities throughout the area before being transmitted through private radios. The applicant has sited past instances in which problems have occurred with the existing broadcast system due to interrupted telephone services. This was most recently experienced during Hurricane Isabel, as all of Clear Channel's local stations were forced off air due to downed telephone lines. Planning and Zoning History: SDP 83-042 Pepsi Cola Administrative Offices - The final site plan for the building which currently houses the Pepsi offices, Clear Channel radio stations and several other professional office uses was approved by the Planning Commission on September 27, 1983 (Attachment D). VA 90-52 Pepsi Bottling Company - At it's meeting on August 14, 1990, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted approval of a Variance allowing the setback for a freestanding sign to be reduced from 30 feet to 10 feet. Character of the Area: The site of the proposed tower is located approximately 72 feet away from the nearest property line to the north at the northeastern comer of an existing office building identified as 1150 Pepsi Place. The tower Would be connected to broadcast equipment housed inside the building on the third floor with a cable bridge that would extend from a window. The subject parcel is surrounded by a variety of uses on adjacent properties, ranging from a retirement community and two assisted living facilities, Other Professional offices and the Pepsi Cola boffiing plant: Because the property also contains a portion of floodplain' limits contiguous with a branch of Meadow Creek that runs through the property located to the east it has a lower groUnd level elevation than many of the surrounding properties. The highest portion of the rOof of this building is 46 feet tall. The side where the tower would be installed is actually 35 feet high. This site is Surrounded by nearby properties containing several buildings and mature trees with top heights that are either similar or taller than that of the office building. During a field visit, a group of test balloons floated from the roof of the office building were mostly visible from locations that are higher in elevation than the site itself (Attachment E). Staff was also allowed to take photos from the roof of the office building in order to form a better idea of the locations from where the.tower might be visible. Although not many parts of public roads are visible from the rooftop, staff did notice that several of the buildings in the area are within plain view. Staff also observed that there are. several existing towers located within a 2- mile radius of this site ranging between 50 and 150 feet in height. RECOMMENDATION: Staffhas reviewed this request for.compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2:4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Staff notes that this proposal does not necessitate any significant disturbance because the area where the tower would be installed is already void of vegetation and vehicular access is already provided to the site from the parking lot of the office building. None of the important resources identified by the Open Space plan and Natural Resources and Cultural Assets (Chapter 2 of the Comprehensive Plan) are present at this site. Therefore, review of this request for compliance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan focuses mainly on the possible impacts that could result from the presence of the new tower at the proposed location. Although the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy does not apply directly to this proposal, the policy does encourage that other types of wireless communications facilities adhere to the policy to the extent possible. In accordance with the guidelines set forth in the policy, staff analysis is focused mainly on the visual impact of.proposed facilities from surrounding properties and roadways. The dishes and antennas proposed for the radio broadcast are much larger than the panel and whip antennas that are typical of the personal wireless services. However, the proposed tower would only be four inches wider than the diameter that is. allowed for metal 2 lc'"' monopoles under the standard conditions. Anticipated visual impacts may be further mitigated if the tower and its attachments are required to be painted a non-reflective color such as a dark brown in order to blend in with the wooded backdrop provided by the incline on properties to the east. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight to issue all speCial use permits permitted hereunder. SPecial use permits for uses. as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisorsthat suCh use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent Property_, The construction area for this facihty is in close proximity to the existing building and does not affect any of the previously undisturbed areas and all supporting equipment would be contained inside of the existing building. Based on the balloon test it is anticipated that the portion of the proposed tower extending above the building's roofline would be visible from adjacent properties located to the north and east. This inclUdes a part of the Branchlands development that is situated higher than the site and fi.om which the northeast comer of the building is plainly visible. The tower would also be visible through groups of trees from the other residential developments on the eastern side of Meadow Creek. However, due to the sizes of several surrounding structures and trees, and the existing office building, the tower would be obscured or have a backdrop when viewed from many angles on adjacent properties to the west. The proposed 60-foot tall tower would be lOcated nearly 72 feet away from the boundary line of the nearest property where another 53-foot tall office building is located. The proposed tower site is separated from that building by the parking lot. on the subject parcel, so the "fall zone" for the proposed tower would not extend beyond that property line. Therefore, with consideration for the above-mentioned reasons it is staff's opinion that the proposed tower and its attachments would not impose any additional, substantial detriment to adjacent property. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, The subject parcel is zoned C-1 Commercial and is surrounded by various other commercial uses to the north and west and residential properties to the east. The Zoning Ordinance designates the C-1 zoning district as an area that permits certain retail sales, service and public use establishments that are primarily oriented toward central business sections of the urban areas. Those uses that are allowed by special use permit in the C-1 zoning district are most often for other compatible establishments or services supporting the by-right activities. This special use permit would allow that installation of a tower and antennas that would be in support of the existing Clear Channel radio stations, which are by-right uses. Although the propoSed tower would be approximately 25 feet taller than the nearest-portion of the building to which it would attached, it would actually be 14 feet taller than the highest point 3 of the building's roof. The tower would only be 7 feet taller than the nearest offsite building on the adjacent property to the north. With a top height of 60 feet the proposed tower would be actually be five (5) feet shorter than the standard height limit of 65 feet for buildings in the C-1 zoning district: Furthermore, staff has also identified several nearby locations that ha~e taller towers supporting various uses, including the personal wireless service facilities at the Sprint site on Rio Road and the Williams Gas Pipeline Transco radio tower on Greenbrier Drive. Therefore, staff has not determined that the proposed tower and its attachments would be responsible for changing the character of the district~ and that such use will be in harmon,/with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Section 1.4.3 states that one of the intents of the Ordinance is, "To facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious community." Staff's review of tOWers and similar facilities gives consideration for the concerns that this intent sets forth for the possible impact that public service facilities can have upon the natural environment. Whenever telecommunication facilities cannot be designed to stealthily blend in with the existing surroundings, staff has recognized a preference to co-locate on existing structures, within utility easements or to build new structures in areas where similar facilities are already present. Both of these.practices can be effective for ensuring that new faciiitles are not located in a manner that requires extensive environmental degradati°n in addition.to the negative visual impacts that could be experienced. However, in this case the applicant is seeking relief from problems that exist due to a reliance upon transmitting signals over land line telephone- a problem that could likely continue if.another off-site location were sought for this tower or its attachments. By providing various forms of information such as public affairs issues, instructional emergency announcements and weather advisories, and with the capability for broadcasting live, local radio broadcasting facilities can be instrumental in promoting the public health, safety and general welfare on a regional level. The applicant's request indicates that the ability of Clear Channel's radio stations to provide these services has been limited at times due to the current dependence upon telephone lines. Therefore, this proposal can be viewed in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, This proposal is in support of an existing by-right use andit would not restrict any of the other uses on the subject parcel, or bY-right uses on any other properties within the district. with additional regulations provided in SectiOn 5.0 of this ordinance, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Section 5.1.12 states: "The proposed use at the location selected will not endanger the health and safetY of workers and/or reSidents in the community and will not impair or prove detrimental to neighboring properties or the development of the same." In order to operate this facilitY and all of its related sites, the applicant is required to comPly with the Federal Communication Cornmission's (FCC) guidelines that are intended to protect the public from the effects of radio 4 frequency emissions. SUMMARY: Staffhas identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: The tower and antennas would allow the radio stations to broadcast continuously despite interruptions to telephone services; All supporting equipment building would located inside the existing office building; No clearing of vegetation would be necessary for the placement of the facility; The proposed facility would have a substantial mount of backdrop when viewed fi:om various locations to the west of the site; The proposed tower would have hmited visibility from most nearby public roads; and, The top height of the proposed tower would be approximately five feet shorter that the maximum height allowed by the district regulations. The following factors are relevant to this consideration: This site is located at a lower elevation than many of the surrounding properties; There are several existing towers supporting facilities within a two-mile radius of this site; and, Attempting to co-locate the proposed antennas on any of the existing facilities that are located nearby would not eliminate the stations' reliance upon telephOne lines for signal transmission. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is staff's opinion that this request is in accord with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 and should not impose any substantial detriment to adjacent properties or change the character of the surrounding districts. Therefore, staffrecommends approval of the requested special use permit subject to the with the following conditions: Recommended conditions of approval: 3; The tower shall be loCated and built as shown in the applicant's submittalPacket entitled Tower 1150 Pepsi Place, initialed 1/28/04 and included as Attachment B. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit the final revised set of site drawings showing the proposed construction of the tower. These plans shall include to-scale elevations showing the tower profile and the location of each antenna Planning staff shall review the revised plans to ensure that all appropriate conditions of the special use permit have been addressed. The tower structure shall not exceed 60 feet in height. 5 The width of each side of the tower shall not exceed 30 inches at its base, and 22 inches at the top. o Attachments shall be shall be limited to three (3) dish antennas not to exceed 6 feet in diameter and the .six (6) antennas detailed in the applicant's submittal packet included as Attachment B. No additional antennas that sUpport services other than radio broadcasting shall be attached to extend above a total height of 60 feet on the tower. The tower, antennas, dishes and all other equipment attached to above the roof of the existing building shall be painted a non-reflective, dull brown color that reduces its contrast with the sky and blends with the backdrop of. trees. 8. No guy wires shall be permitted. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within (90)days of the date its use for radio broadcasting services is discontinued. ATTACHMENTS:: A~ B- C- D- E- Application and Request for Special Use Permit Applicant's COnstruction and Antenna Details Tax/Location Map Site Plan Section Site Photos 6 '- County or' Albemarle %* l-J~J~lLlllt~..llLUl, l-~U. Zlusxs.~x.-~u~*s~ I OFFICF-~USI~ O~ LY -- -- sp.~ ~)_~-3 "(~) ~ T,~t,' ~ _~_ / ~/d~)- ..(~ Z _ {~ ATTACHMENT A Application for Special Use Permit *Zoning District ~ ' } . 'Zoning Ordinance Section number requited ("staff will ~ist you wi~ these items) Number of acres to be covered by Special Use Permit ~ · ~.,.~t ~ ~l~,~ ~ Is this an amendment to an existing Special Use Permit9. Are you submitting a site development plan with this applicafiong. {~ Ye~"~ No Q YesCI No [C~ntactPcrson(whomshoutdwe~ll/wnt:co.cerningt~isl~m~¢¢t?): Kishore Persaud 1150 Pepsi Place C't~yCharl°ttesville.._ State VA. ~P.~' 22901 [ DaytimePhone[434 ) 98~- 6626 Fax~434-978-0723 E-mailk~sh°repersaud~ c ~ ea~,~nne ~. com ]Ownerofiandt^slismdinth:Coumy'srecor~s): Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co of Central Virginia Address 1150 Pepsi Place City Charlottesville State v~'f Zip22901 DaytimcPhone( 434 ) 978-2140 Fax# (434)973-9074 E-mail 250gto@pepsicva.com IApp[ican~(wh~ismcc~mact~rs~r~r~s~nmtg?w~misr~que~tingth~s~c~i.~-~use?~:C~ar Channel Radio ,._~,,. ~..:115@ Papsi Place CityCharlo. ttesvibltalt? VA ./,~22901 Daytime Phone (434 )981-6626 Fax ~434-978-0723 E-maRishorepersaud@ il c 1 earchannel, eom Tax map and parcel 061WO-O2-OO-O02AO Charl ottm~qv~ 11 ~; VA 22901 Location of property (landmatka. imcrsectmns, or o~hcr) Place - 3rd building on left. Enterin~ Physical Addresstiramgne.~) 1150 Pepsi Pl. from Greenbrier Drive onto Pepsi Does the owncr of this property own {or I~ave any ownership interest in) any abumng property7 if yes, please thosc tax map and paxcel numbers 41C003000 RPC# 17521 Block G Tax Map 4lB OFFICE USE ONLY F~,' amount $ Dat~: Paid Hi'~tory: 0 Special Use Permits: Concurrent ecvicw of Sim Dcvctopmcnt Plan? Chadotmsville, VA 22902 401 Mclnii're Road o :..,,,.,:,. o, ,4,'¢5 dc, a Y= c~ ~o ~--CEIVED i ATTACHMENT A Describe your request in detail and include all pertinent information such as the numbers o[ persons involved in the use, operating hours, and any unique features of the use: ATrACHMENTS. REQUIRED - provide two(2) copies of each: Recorded plat or boundary survey of the property requested for the rezoning. If there is no recorded plat or boundary survey, please provide legal description of the property and the Deed Book and-page number or Plat Book and page number. Note: If you are requesting a special use permit only for a portion of the property, it needs to be described or delineated on a copy of the plat or surveyed drawing. Ownership information - If ownership of the property is in the name of any type of legal entity or organization including, but not limited to, the name of a corporation, panne, rship or association, or in the name of a trust, or in a fictitious name, a document acceptable to the County .must be. submitted certifying that the person signing below has.the authority to do so. If the applicant is a contract purchaser, a document accePtable to the County must be submitted containing the owner's written consent to the applicati0,n. If the applicant is the agent of the owner, a documen.t acce. ptable to the County must be submitted that is evidence of the existence and scope of the agency. OPTIONAL ATTACHMENTS: Drawings or conceptual plans, if any. Additional Information, if any. I hereby-certify that I own the subject property, or have the legal power to act on behalf of the owner in filing this application. I also certify that the information provided is true and accurate to the best of my James L. Jessu'p Jr Printed l%me /'o / Date /43/4-978-21/40 Daytime phone number of signatory ATTACHMENT A Clear Channel Radio 1150 Pepsi Place Suite 300 Charlottesville, VA, 22901 October 27, 2003 County of Albemarle Department of Building COde and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road CharlOtteSville, VA 22902 Dear Sir or Madam: Clear Channel Broadcasting is seeking your kind permission to erect a Broadcast Towerr at 1150 Pepsi Place, Charlottesville VA. The purpose of this Tower is to allow a Wireless connection between our Studios and our Transmitters. CurrentlY, we are using Telephone lines for this connection, however, we have had several unfortunate experiences of losing this telephone connection during periods of bad weather. This haS caused us to be off the Airwaves at a.time when 'our listeners are depending on us to provide them with pertinent and relative information. When we are off the Air dudng a Storm, we are unable to Broadcas[ EAS messages and these messages are of considerable importance to the safety of our listeners. The proposed Tower will be at the rear of the building and will extend 25 feet above the roof. Three Microwave Dishes, four Yagi Antennas and two multipurpose Antennas will be mounted on the Tower. Our Landlord, Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Central Virginia and Mr. James Jessup, President of the Company, has given us permission .to erect the Tower and has provided us with the relevant documents including the Plat and ownership information. Thank you most kindly for your consideration in this matter, Sincerely, KiShore Persaud Market Engineering Manager Clear Channel Radio 1150 Pepsi Place Suite 300 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Tel: 434~817-7650 Ce11:434-981-6626 Fax: 434-978-0723 ATTACHMENT A Pepsi-Cola Bottling-Company' of Central Virginia Post Office Box 9035 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906-9035 (434) 978-2140 ThiS serves as notification that James L. Jessup, Jr. is President of Pepsi-Cola Bottling Company of Central Virginia and is authorized to transact business and sign necessary documents on it's behalf. Secretary j:2o~rr .. / '~ TRACT B-I /~. 3.088 Ac. TRACT A l:M.61W-02-O0- Pored D. B. 779 p. ,t05 (Plot) J' PL..CE % I TRACT // 1:3 LINE · Esm t SITE DATA: Pepsi-Cola BollFmi Co. of Ce~lrQI V~*ghlo P.O. Box 5106, Choflolle,lvPle, Va. 22905 LEGAL ~SCRFT~N: Porrel 6~ 02 D.B. 779 P.403 ZO~G: Coflm~ercl~ C-I TOTAL AREA: 4.913 Acres Al C~netl mmked wllh SUBDIVISION PLAT OF TRACTS B-I & B-2 A DIVISION OF TRACT B SHOWN ON PLAT. IN D,B. 779 P.403 A PORTION OF RESIDUE OF SECTION 2 WESTFIELD CHARLOTTESVILLE DISTRICT ALBEMARLE COUNTY i VIRGINIA !00 ~0 0 I00 2O0 3OO SCALE: I'"100' L ~4-! .3 (I 655 ~ ~----- ---.J flOUDABUSII, GALE & ASSOC., INC. SCAt. E IN FEE 1' A Pfole~tim~II CmpollliOn F~tv~5(O, P[£ io~ i,lc~ (~.~p~'J,~CERTiFIED.LANDSUR~VEYOR _ ENGINEER DATE: OCT, ~81{988 .REVISEDs NOV. 2fl,1988(EsmIs} Chlel°llllvillI. VirlJflil GO~.~ // COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT FINANCE OF 401 MCINTIRE ROAD. CHARLOTTESVILLE. VA 22902-4596 ATTACHMENT A 2003 REAL ESTATE TAX RATE $0.76 PER $100 PARCEL 061WO-O2-OO.-OO2AO ACREAGE 1.312 LEGAL I Ti~CT B-lB LEGAL 2 AC~Y_~GE DISTRICT RIo MORTGAGE FILE NAME 1/1/2003 PEPsI-cozm, LAND VALUE 457,200 BUILDING VALUE 8s3,1oo LAND USE DEFERRAL o.oo EXEMPTION o.oo BILL NUMBER 2003124722 BILL DESCRIPTION IST HJ%LF 2003 2003 MONTHS ASSESSMENT TAX PENALTY & INTEREST TOTAL 6 1,310,300 4,979.14 (LIP TOTAL DUE IF PAID BY JTTNE 05, 2003: ~ ,979.±4 6 1,-3!0,300 4-979.14 4.979. ,,1 TOTAL DUE INCLUDING 2ND HALF $9,958. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS Please see reverse side of this bill for additional information. TEAR AT PERFORATION AND RETURN BO'Ff'OM PORTION OF NOTICE WITH PAYMENT. OWNERS APPROVAL .% 'T'~4I~ SLJBOIVISION IS MA~ WITH THE CONSENT 0F THE UNDER SIGNED OWNERS.PROPRIETORS, AND/OR TRUSTEES. AIL ROADS AND STREETS. IF rJOT PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED. ARE HEREBY TENDEREO FOR C)EDICATION TO PUBLIC USE. , / , / ,.~TATE OF ¥.U~RGINIA I; '.' ;~,'-~.~,(~ ~-'J~' ..... A NO~RY'PUS~IC FOR T14E STATE A~RESAI0.00 CERTIFY ~'AT ,:'~ /~ WHOSE NAMES AR~ SIGNEO ~ T~ FOREG~NG WRITING UEARING 0ATE OF ~ ~lg~HAV~ AC~OWL- EOGE0 THE SAME BEFORE ME IN ~:STATE. AFORESAID. TM 61W(2) Percel-I '~ SEMINOLE g C suBDIVISION. PLAT BLOCK G SEMINOLE SQUARE OF PARCEL 3 AN[} A PORTION OF PARCEL 7 TAX MAP 41B ATTACHMENT A 1"= 300" DATE March 22,1982SHEET 1 of CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA Engineers-Lond Survey0rs-Lond Plonners Chorlottesville, Virqiaia r 'FILE. 6053 ' ' ' "~: .... ~;';~:'~:~' ':~ CITY PLANNING~COMMI~SION . . -. . '.~.~ .... · ..<:~'~.. . · . .. :~,:~-~,.. ~ - ~.. - ~ ~'~ -- ATTACHMENT A fg~rporztt~n (~omm{~{on, ~o Ijereh~ certif~ tlj~tt PEPSI-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF CENTRAL VIRGINIA is a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of Virginia and it is in good standing. The date of incorporation is November 19. 1941 . Nothing more is hereby certified. 10 ATTACHMENT B TOWER ll50'PEPSI PLACE CHARLOTTESVILLE V.A. 22901 35 FEET FROM GROUND TO ROOF EDGE 25 FEET FROM ROOF EDGE TO TOP OF TOWER TOTAL HEIGHT OF TOWER = 60 FEET ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT B /'7 ATTACHMENTB # if"" ATTACHMENT B 10/13/03 ~ON 07:07 F.~-~ 1 410 778 3096 ROR'N/MID-ATLA2frIC ":'1%'::.:' ELEVATION 1 l SSV-9 Technical Information Antenna Dimensions Wind .Forces Installation Manual Patterns Mapp Software Additional InfOrmation Shipping Information PriCing J[~ Customer Service If yOu require an an[enna outside of the specifications available on this website please contact cUstomer service. Specifications Model No. P-9A72G*-S ATTACHMENT B Electrical Antenna Size Frequency Band Gain (dBi) Beam Width (deg) Front-to-Back Ratio (dB) VSWR Max (RL) Cross Poi (dB) Polarization Antenna' Input 6ft (1.8m) 940-960 MHz Low 22 Mid 22.1 High 22,2 12.5 24.0 Standard 1.3 (t 7.'~') Low 1.15 (23.1)* Single 2O P=7/8 EIA Air Dielectric N=N-Female E=7/16 Female DIN F=7/8 EIA Non-Pressurized L=7/8 EIA Air Dielectric (Low VSWR) Mechanical Reflector Back Mount Mount Pipe Diameter center Offset Elevation.Adjustment Range Azimuth Adjust Supplied Side Braces Optional Side Braces Vertical Tower Pipe Heavy: walled Aluminum pipes Heli arc welded Galvanized Steel 4.5in. (114mm) 7in. (178mm) +5 %5° N/A 0 side braces Available 4.5" O.D. Environmental Wind Loading Operational Survival 70mph (112km/h) 125mph (20Okm/h) httn://www.trir~ointtflobal.com/Gabriel/MW Confi_~urator/detail.asn?fi'om=catalo~,&icl=l 11311 ATTACHMENT B CR'ID ANTENNAS WITH -"U" MOUNT 4 FT. GRID ANTENNAS WITH -"U" MOUNT 6 FT. GRID ANTENNAS WITH -"U" ,~OUNT Diameter ft "A" "B .... C .... D .... E "F" (cm) in (cm in (cm in (cm in (cm in' (cm in (cra 3 (91) 6 (15) 9.56 (24) 3.71 (9) 9(23) 18.5 (47). 37 (94) 4 (122) 8.75 (22) 12.94(33) 3.28 (8) 12.67 (32) 37.29 (95) 50.5 (128) 6 (183) 13.5 (34) 5.34-8.09 (14-21) 6 (15) 15.75 (40) 15.75 (40) 74.5 (189) l 1 i I 2002 PrOduct Catalog . j ,r YC-SERIES YAGI ANTENNAS MARTI YC-Ser!es s[x,-element Yogi antennas deliver 10 dB gain and come with an extendect boom design ~or usa in a wide range of applicat, Jons as well as mounting styles. All functional components'except the "N female input connedor, are hand-tilted for field replacement. YC-SERIES SPECIFICATIONS Power .................................... 100 waits power input (S00 wats for YC-450) Gain ..... ~ ............................... .7.86dlxl Bandwidth .............................. Frequency:determined Frequency range ................... 140 to 500 MHz (Specify Frequency) VSWR .................................. :....i.5~1 or less F/B ratio .................... : ........... Beller than 20 dB Coanedor.....: ......................... ,.Type "N" FemaJe Pattern....., ............................ :..45°.horizontal beam width. 60° vertical beam width 20db + F/B ratio Shipping dimensions .............. .Vary with frequency Conrad factory Shipping weight ........................ Varies from 6-8 lbs depending on frequency Optional Slacking Harnesses available for .~e YC.-Series. 2YC-150 and 2YC-450SH to increase antenna gain by 3dB. HUSTLER-SERIES YAGI ANTENNAS waterproof coot painling boom to creole o ,black polyesler powder determined MHz wolfs maximum power input lypo "N" Female a width. 40° vertical beam width 20db + F/B ratio dimensions ........... .7' x4' x 44' Shipping weight .................. 6 lbs. B MART/' CALL(817)735-8134 · FAX{8171735-93~O SC-48 PARABOUC ANTENNA ATTACHMENT B MAH ! ! Vertically Polar~ed as shewn. SC-48 SPECIFICATIONS Power ....................................... 100 waits maximum power input Frequency .................................. 940-960 MHz Bandwidth ....................... ~ .......... 20 MHz Gain at 950 MHz.:.. ................ .'.18.9 dBi (16.70dbd) Impedance~ .................................. 50 ohms VSWR .......................................... 1.3:1 F/Bratio.~ ................................. 23 dB Connector ................................. Type ~N" Female Pattern ..................................... 16° half power beam width. 23db F/B ratio FCC Category ........................... B Antenna diameter .................... .4' Mounted weight ....................... 47 Ihs. Wind loading (! OOmph) ..... .225 lbs. Mounting pipe ......................... 1.75" to 3.5" SHIPPING INFO~TION ~otor freight or air f~eight only Shipping box size .......... .~ ...... 56' x 55" x 12' Shipping weight ....................... 66 ~. NOTE ~e ~C48 is available onl~ in a. 4' diamete~ I I ! ! ! ! 1 ! 1 ! I 1 http://www.martielectronics.com/downloacVProduct_Photos/YC_Antenna. JPG ATTACHMENT B 10/13/2003 II ' 61-26 ATTACHN~ENTC ... 61W-3--19' sv o3-o8o e~i'si VL~C~ TOW~ Tax ~ap: Albemarle County o61w 0 375 750 1,125 Note: This map is for d~sptay purposes on/y. See Ma~ Bcok Introdu~k3n for addiOonal details. , '"": ' ' ' . !~' ': -:: ;'" i ~ i~.. ..'~.- ..... ~. ~. ~: ~:.,:~::i~::.:.'~: ,'::i i:.:? :~.:, "...~. ' ~:~':'-~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ?'~:~,:.:~.~.7:~'.: · ~::'.:"...':..:~':: .. ~.'. ,'~ .~':~ · ' ~ ~ II ~,,;.~ .-.:~....:.~.~. -~. ~/~-.: ..... . ~.~ ~:'~:.-."';~?~:1:'?~:~:,.:~.~:1':'. ............... ' '.:~:E':,:~.::?.:.:!'" ........ ~::: . . ~'''' ~ .... . ~ , .' .... '"':' .... 7:,'.'. '.-.* . · ~ ~ ~ ~ -~:~:':.~:~. :,.:,:: 3:?.:. ::',: /'.':.:f' :"-:'.. :-' · : ~.~ '-..' . ":' '.: · :: :'.':" : .=. ~ .... ".~'": '...."..:." ~'~ .................................:~<.?,.~..~:..~:~..'~" '~t~'.,E:., .:;"....,~:~.;.' .. -.... · .' ...: .,.. '.' :,:':,..?.,:.:E., ~:~:...~ .,: ......... · : · ,;v ;,.. . ,i ~ ~ ..... ~ .... ~ ' ! ..~...:,. ... .. ..... ~ ~ ~.;.:~ ~, .,~. :::.~:..::..'~.'~' :.4: :~' 1.:::..' ~. f:.'..~... ' :.f::~E:",:::~:.:?::'E~::.~.:.:~:~',~:E:...'~'..,:','~. '"....':..-: '... .... ;.'.'. ;...., .. ,.:.:. ~. . .:~: .::.~ :.::-~'.:.1'":~,~'. :~., .~ :..: .' .':' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "' 7 --C~.. 0 o-- o z LIJt o0__ . COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development 401 Mc[ntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 February 23, 2004 25'02-04A03:44 RCVD Mary Chapin Carpenter 1500 Burchs Creek Rd Batesville, VA 22924 RE: Addition to Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District Dear Ms. Carpenter: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 17, 2004, by a vote of 7:0 recommended approval of the addition of 82.75 acres to the Batesville AgriculturallForestal District. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and makea final decision on March 3, 2004, 2:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. Planner SC/icf COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 February 23, 2004 25-02-04A03:44 RCVD Carol M. Davis and Bettye S. Walsh 1300 Burchs Creek Batesvilte, VA 22924 RE: Addition to Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District Dear Ms. Davis & Ms. Walsh: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 17, 2004, by a vote of 7:0 recommended approval of the addition of 23 acres to the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on March 3, 2004, 2:00 p.m., Meeting Room #241, Second Floor, County Office Building. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above-noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me. .., ~c~ot~c~ar; Planner SC/jcf Cc: EllaCarey ORDNANCE NO. 04-~(~) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWlDE SIGNIFICANCE, OF CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, AgricultUral and Forestal Districts, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 3-207, Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows: ARTICLE H. DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE DMSION 2. DISTRICTS Sec. 3-207 Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District. The district known as the "Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 70, parcel 40A; tax map 71, parcels 23A, 23C, 24Bi 24C, 24C1, 26, 26A, 26B, 26B1, 26B2, 26C, 27A; tax map 84, parcel 35A; tax map 85; parcels 3, 3A (part), 4J, 17, 17B, 21, 22B, 22C, 30D, 31; tax map 85A, parcel 1. This.district, created on May 2, 1990 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on April 19, 2000, shall next be reviewed prior to May 2, 2010. (Code 1988, § 2.1-4(s); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 01-3(2), 7-11-01; Ord. 04-3(1), 3-17-04) I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of 6 to 0, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on March 17, 2004. Mr. Bowerman Mr. Boyd Mr. Dorrier Mr. Rooker Ms. Thomas Mr. Wyant Aye Nay X X X X X X Clerk' Board of CoUnty Supers Staff Person: planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Scott Clark FebrUary 17~ 2004 March 3, 2004 Batesville Agricultural-Forestal District Addition The Batesville District was created on May 2, 1990. The District was last reviewed on April 19, 2000, and was renewed for a 1 O-year review period. Two additions have been proposed: · Tax Map 71 Parcels 26B, 26B1, and 26B2 (82.75 acres owned by Mary Chapin Carpenter) · Tax Map 71 Parcel 26C (23 acres owned by Carol M. Davis and Bettye S. Walsh) Location: The Batesville District is located near the community of Batesville. Acreage: The Batesville District contains 712.4 acres in 22 parcels. The proposed additions contain 105.75 acres in 4 parcels. See Attachment B for the locations of the additions. Agricultural and Forestal Significance: The Carpenter properties are largely wooded, with some pasture area. The Davis/Walsh property is almost entirely wooded. Significant Land Not in Agricultural/Forestal Production: There are two dwellings on the Carpenter properties, and one on the Davis/Walsh property. Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: Residential Local Development Patterns and Needs: The Batesville area has many forested parcels, as well as farms (usually pasture), as well as some residential use. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Regulations: The Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District and the proposed addition are located within the Rural Area of the Comprehensive Plan and are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The nearest Development _Area to this proposed addition is the Crozet Community, which is approximately five miles north-northeast of the District. A relevant Comprehensive Plan objective is "All decisions concerning the Rural Areas shall be made in the interest of the four major elements of the Rural Areas, with highest priority given to preserving agricultural and forestal activities rather than encouraging residential development." (Land Use Plan). A relevant strategy is, "Actively promote and support voluntary techniques such as agricultural/forestal districts .... "(Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Chapter) The Open Space Plan shows this area to have important farmlands, forests, and stream valleys. 71-27 71-25 -...~71 Prepared by Albema#e County Office of Geographic Data SerCces(GDS). Map created Ocfober 2003. Aerial Imagery © 2002 Commonwealth Of Virginia 71-56 72-32 85-28 BATEV~LLLE 480 960 1,440 Feet 72~ Albemarle County Planning Commission February 17, 2004 Partial Set of Minutes Additions to Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, February 17, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Chairman; Calvin Morris= Jo Higgins, Marcia Joseph, Pete Craddock, Vice-Chairman; and Bill Edgerton. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Margaret Doherty, Principal Planner; Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Public Hearing Items: Additions to Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District - Requests to add four parcels to the Batesville Agricultural and Forestal District, in accordance with Section 3-203 of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The first property, described as Tax Map 71, .Parcel 26C, contains 23 acres. The second property, described as Tax. Map 71, Parcels 26B, 26B1, and 26B2, contains 82.75 acres. The properties are located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District on Rt. 689 (Burch's Creek Road), approximately 0.6 miles from the intersection with Rt. 637 (Dick Woods Road). The properties are zoned RA Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates these properties as Rural Area. (Scott Clark) Mr. Clark summarized the staff report as follows: There are four parcels being added to the Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District, which was created in May~ 1990. The.District was last reviewed in 2000 and was renewed fora 10-year review period. Two additions have been proposed: · Tax Map 71, Parcels 26B, 26B1 and 26B2 (82.75 acres owned by Mary Chapin Carpenter) · Tax Map 71, Parcel 26C (23 acres owned by Carol M. Davis and Bettye S. Walsh) The District currently contains 712.4 acres in 22 parcels. The proposed additions contain 105.75 acres in 4 parcels. The Batesville District is located near the community of Batesville. The Open Space Plan shows this area to have-im portant farmlands, forests, and stream valleys. On December 15, 2003, the Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee unanimously recommended approval of these additions to the Batesville district. Mr. Thomas asked if there were any questions for staff from the Commissioners. There being none, he opened the public hearing-and invited comment from anyone in the audience who wanted to speak regarding this issue. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back before the Commission for discussion and possible action. Mr. Rieley moved to recommend approval of the Additions to Batesville Agricultural/Forestal District as proposed. Mr. Morns seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (7:0). ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 17, 2004 PARTIAL MINUTES - DRAFT ADDITION TO BATESVILLE AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List- 2004-2010 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Worksession on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for 2004- 2010 and County's Priority List for Road Improvements STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: March 17,2004 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: The Board of Supervisors held a worksession on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List- 2004-2010 on March 3, 2004 and requested staff to gather additional information regarding the Heards Mountain Road (Rt. 633) project and to create two separate priority lists for rural rustic roads and regular paving projects. The Board of Supervisors also requested staff to determine the rationale for ranking paving projects and determining their cost. 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: Staff separated all of the unpaved road projects into two lists. One list has prioritized all of the projects that VDOT preliminarily determined qualify for the rural rustic roads program. The second list prioritized the remaining unpaved road requests using VDOT standard paving guidelines. It is likely that some projects will move from one list to the other as VDOT does more detail analysis of the projects closer to construction. An estimated advertisement date for some projects will be identified by VDOT when the Board of Supervisors adopts a Priority List. VDOT had previously established the regular paving cost for some projects. The rural rustic road costs are based on a unit cost of $100,000 per mile. The cost for regular or rural rustic road paving could increase or decrease when the project is further analyzed closer to construction. Staff also gave a description of the projects and why it is prioritized in its position. While several cdteria are used to evaluate unpaved roads (including the physical condition of the road, emergency agency/schOol identified need, development area vs. rural area location), because of the relative similarity in road conditions and rural area location for unpaved road projects, the criteria which has the greatest influence in the priority of the projects is traffic volumes. During this review, staff discovered that Beam Road (Rt. 769) from Rt. 1484 to the dead end was mistakenly identified as the next unpaved road project and allocated funds. The project that should have been identified was Rocky Hollow Road, which is also Rt. 769. It is the 1.4 mile eastern end of the road which has a much higher daily traffic volume. Both projects are now prioritized in the correct position. Heards Mountain Road (Rt. 6337: VDOT will be recommending to the Nelson County Board of Supervisors in the next few months to pave Rt. 633 in Nelson County as a rural rustic road. If approved by the Nelson County Board of Supervisors, the road will not likely get paved until 2006. Based on this information, staff is recommending that no funding be allocated to this project, but its priority remain the same until a construction date is set for the Nelson County portion, VDOT has informed staff that the section in Albemarle from the Nelson County line to the Village of Heards can be done utilizing the rural rustic road standards. AG ENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List- 2004-2010 March 17, 2004 Page 2 Staffwill remove from consideration the section of Rt. 633 from the Village of Heards to the portion of Rt. 633 currently paved (towards Rt. 29). This section has steep terrain and would be very costly to pave. Since this section was previously added by staff to meet a VDOT requirement for read paving, a public request to pave the read will be addressed. Staff will continue to work with VDOT and Nelson County on this project and revisit it with the Board of Supervisors during next year's review of the Six Year Secondary Pdority List. Rural Rustic Roads Proiects: The Board of Supervisors discussed the possibility of having two rural rustic read pilot projects this year: a small scale project and a larger scale project. Staff reviewed this request with VDOT and was informed that this would be possible, provided VDOT could work out related construction contract issues in time. The contract negotiations for rural rustic read improvements are different from regular road improvements and regular paving projects. It will take some time for the Residency to get the contract process in order (hopefully within the next two or three months). If this can be done in time, the County will be able to complete two pilot projects this calendar year. VDOT and staff were unable to identify a viable small scale project to pilot the rural rustic read program that could be done this year; therefore, staff is only recommending a large scale project. Gilbert Station Road between Rt. 784 and Rt. 20 is recommended as the pilot project, which is a higher daily traffic volume road. Although Gilbert Station Road is not the next project on the Priority List, staff has taken into consideration the significant history presented on this read. Furthermore, staff could not identify any major safety issues with the projects ranked above Gilbert Station Road that would necessitate that they be constructed prior to Gilbert Station Road. VDOT will be able to pave Rt. 640 between Rt. 20 and Rt. 784 this year using rural rustic road standards (if contract issues can be worked out). Some portions of the remaining section of Rt. 640 could be done using rural rustic road standards, but there are some parts of the read that have major safety issues that would not allow it to qualify for rural rustic roads standards. VDOT and staff will continue to evaluate construction possibilities for the remaining sections. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the Six Year Secondary Road Priority List with separate pdority ranking for rural rustic reae paving and regular paving, Staff also recommends the Board endorse Gilbert Station Road as the pilot project for the rural rustic read program. 04.038 Z z ILl z 0 '-m }- o o 8§~88§ 8oo8~oo oo~§§o~oO o o o o ~ Comments to Albemarle County Board of Supervisors March 17, 2004 Members of the Board, My name is Bill Puso and I am here representing the residents of Allen Road (Route 666) and all its feeder roads. It is good to see we are making some progress and there is now a separate list for the Rural Rustic Roads Program. I have reviewed the list to be presented to you tonight and there are a few discrepancies in the data provided. I am only addressing the first five roads in the priority order. As you can see on the sheet I have provided you, there appears to be a major discrepancy with the information for Woods Edge Road. I have personally driven it and believe my information is accurate. The beginning of Woods Edge Road from 616 for .8 miles is already paved. There are only 18 homes on the remaining .6 miles. Therefore, the traffic count appears to be grossly overstated. Hacktown Road has similar issues. The beginning from 250 in for .3 miles is paved and there are 17 homes on the remaining .6 miles. Likewise, the traffic count appears to be overstated. On the sheets I gave you, I have added an additional column that I called "Efficiency Factor." It is simply the cost to pave the road divided by the tdp count. ! believe this should be considered in your priority decision, as it would indicate the highest number of residents being served for the dollars spent. It should be noted the cost estimates from VDOT are stated at a unit cost of $100,000 per mile but the original list does not follow that calculation. Allen Road is rounded up to $100,000 when Allen Road is only .74 miles long. The estimated cost for Allen Road should be $74,000. See the adjusted columns to the dght of the sheet. At the last meeting, the Board asked for a recommendation for two RRR pilots for this year, a small-scale, and a large-scale project. The Planning Department has come back recommending only one, Gilbert Station Road as a large-scale project. They state they "cannot find a viable small-scale project." We believe Allen to be a perfect small-scale project for the following reasons: Allen Road is clearly small-scale. Allen Road has good alignment - a few gradual curves, very little change in elevation, and would require minimal grading It already has a good gravel base. It would be the most efficient use of County funds of the top five candidates on the RRR list. A great return for the $74,000 estimated cost. At the last Board Meeting, Mr. Jim Bryan, the Charlottesville Resident Engineer for VDOT, named Allen Road as one of the top three candidates for RRR. Beam Road and Woods Edge Road were the other two. Beam is no longer on the list and an accurate traffic count for Woods Edge would certainly move it much lower in priority. The County needs a project of this scale to gauge future project costs o We should be able to pave Allen Road at the estimated cost or less o The large-scale project recommended by the Planning Department, Gilbert Station Road, is winding with sharp curves, hills, and will require significant grading. o Selecting both will give a good perspective of both ends of the spectrum. I believe this is why the Board initially requested two. Completing these two projects, this year will quickly get Albemarle County over the learning curve for future pdoritization of other roads under this program. We urge that you not let this opportunity slip by and look to your support this evening to include Allen Road as the second road in the pilot program for this year. it is the right thing for the residents who use Allen Road and the right thing for Albemarle County. Thank you. Bill Puso