The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-09-10 . BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FIN A L SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 2:00 P.M., ~OOM 241 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. 2:00 p.m. - Joint Meetina with Plannina Commission and Architectural Review Board a. Discussion: Possible Changes to Current Entrance Corridor Processes. 3. 3:00 p.m. - Joint Meetina with Albemarle County Service Authority a. Discussion: Do connection fees adequately compensate cost of capital improvements? b. Provision of service in the Growth Areas (Northfields, Carrsbrook and Oak Hill) c. Albemarle Place . status of sewer service . status of Meadow Creek Interceptor d. North Fork Sewer Project . status of engineering design . status of financial plan *** All items for discussion as time permits 4. 4:00 p.m. - Work Session a. Update on current financial conditions. 5. Discussion: Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Funding Options. 6. Adjourn. ~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TENTATIVE SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 2:00 P.M., ROOM 241 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. 2:00 p.m. - Joint Meetina with Plannina Commission and Architectural Review Board a. Discussion: Possible Changes to Current Entrance Corridor Processes. 3. 3:00 p.m. - Joint Meetina with Albemarle County Service Authority a. Discussion: Do connection fees adequately compensate cost of capital improvements? b. Provision of service in the Growth Areas (Northfields, Carrsbrook and Oak Hill) c. Albemarle Place . status of sewer service . status of Meadow Creek Interceptor d. North Fork Sewer Project . status of engineering design . status of financial plan *** Items for discussion as time permits 4. 4:00 p.m. - Work Session a. Update on current financial conditions. 5. Discussion: Regional Transit Authority (RT A) Funding Options. 6. Adjourn. , " ~------ - - ,.- .-. r WAYS TO SIMPLIFY: INCREASE ADMIN REVIEW o New buildings/additions located 2000' or more from the EC . Example: Old Trail . (Resolution of Intent passed by Planning Commission) o All telecommunications applications . Do these like SPs and ZMAs . (Resolution of Intent passed by Planning Commission) o "2nd tier" buildings . A building stands between the EC and the proposed site . Example: University Tire at Pantops . (Resolution of Intent passed by Planning Commission) o Minor amendments - both site plan and architectural . For minor changes, but the "doesn't constitute a substantial change in design" exemption doesn't apply . Example: Holiday Inn drop-off canopy . (Resolution of Intent passed by Planning Commission) o Any building permit that doesn't require a site plan/site plan amendment . Example: R E Lee on Hydraulic . (Resolution of Intent passed by Planning Commission) o All signs . (Resolution of Intent passed by Planning Commission) , --~- -- . - ,~ ... .. - .._......_._~ [ . I.) Boards need to be careful when making decisions based on idealistic, but often unrealistic images and presentations. Some of those presentations can actually misrepresent what will be built. (Hollymead Town Center fountain is Target mudhole; mountains illustrated as backdrop will actually be obscured by development at Crozet Station.) (Hopefully better addressing in Legislative process with Entrance Corridor Review by Design Planner) TO-, ;., ~ " " I _...... n._ ...._ ......_._ [ o 2.) Boards should be careful in approving projects that exceed the maximum capacity of the site to include not only building and parking, but all required landscaping, clear of utilities and other easements. Frequently ARB comments have had to indicate that the building, and thus the required parking, are too big for the site to accommodate the landscaping required to make the project appropriate for the Entrance Corridor. (Hopefully better addressing in Legislative process with Entrance Corridor Review by Design Planner) ------ -~ - ~ 3.) Some decisions that are made are made for generaltenns, and when translated into motions or action memos can result in restrictions to the ARB that may have not been intended. (Leyland cypress were required to be part of screening tree mix per special use pernlitlrezoning drawings. even though that species was preferred to be excluded by ARB. Likewise, the two. tall evergreen trees were required to be preserved after new project developed at Luxor Park could have benefited from alternative plantings at that location). <Hopefully better addressing in Let!islative process with Entrance Corridor Review by Desil!n Planner) I I ";......~.'A'......-"'.'" ,-, , .::=:-.------=-~:=-~-.- - n': . H_ -~ , .~....~ ......:..---.::.Jl 3.) Some decisions that are made are made for general ternlS, and when translated into motions or action memos can result in restrictions to the ARB that may have not been intended. (Leyland cypress were required to be part of screening tree mix per special use pernlitlrezoning drawings, even though that species was preferred to be excluded by ARB. Likewise, the two. tall evergreen trees were required to be preserved after new project developed at Luxor Park could have benefited from alternative plantings at that location). <Hopefully better addressing in Legislative process with Entrance Corridor Review by Design Planner) ~. v_ nor1h ItCIO.. ,rte (e:llIl1lngl THE GAINES GROUP, PL..C 4.) Regulations without adequate and effective enforcement will be disregarded, and violated, by those most likely to have the worst impact. Ineffective enforcement also makes Boards' efforts meaningless (e.g., ARB has had to initiate actions regarding chain link fences and signs installed without review; other site issues include grading or building first and "asking forgiveness later" sadly negates efforts for any tree preservation). (Enforcement staffing issue - prioritization of enforcement will be before Board of Supervisors this Fall) _--=.n_.=-=-----~_ _ . _. _.._.___~ I 5.) Should the ARB purview extend to buildings that will transform the county's skyline. even when those properties are beyond (he 500' or contiguous boundaries established for the EC review'! (E.g., at Hollymeade Town Center, Area A2, 3/07, only C2 and D2 wefe in ARB boundaries. while adjacent zones ofCI and 01 were outside that review process. even though those zones originally had also applied for 84' and 100' tall buildings). Also, should the ARB's review extend to all Albemarle County building projects'~ Regardless. any ARB review should be initiated earlier in the process (e.g.. N011h Fork Firestation). (Polic)' matter re: role of ARB - will rf'qulre more stafT resources) p~ ~J"~~~'d~ - ":.::'~j.~w~'":ee; " .'1':.. \0," (';: i.L:lr , '-. ::.' '--1> 6.) Fees for review should correspond to review time required. Why should a 17 or 20 building project that requires significantly more board review time and staff allocation be the same as for a single, small building'! (These fees to be addressed with Board of Supervisors early in 2009) tl~~''''Y~~0~?r~:~z~;:''~~~';&'ftt~~.i~.~ I '[';:""'f' -.-. ...,~ ' " ,( .,;f' ,.~_~r;:z;"..:.,.~. /~, i HS~ ---j'4i. .: :""'~'~;J~f.I;~~ri: ji1~-~ :jJi. ',I "~-~- t,M.JJjl' ~. ,~p.-.~'. 'lIT' . d." , I ' 1"['" '~.':""<" --1>"{O~'" j i' ! --- .~'Ii\ 1 Ii :i~'><C~" "/1:i~:l ~ -"- ,\ ':::1 4~ ';j".- ~l_:~~.' '.- '.. ! ;i--!. ;1 l~....lj ./ii{4~". ~ "}1';~ . ,'~. ~.inn ." . _.=.~tJ,:;:J.:.JL ..""......'-_.i;:J....:....... -, ~ ~~.- ....."...~.;.;.. -~~~~ ~Ifl~.~:r:' .'"";tf'.~~=:;;:;..~:~-- ._~...n...,"'?""..."..,p ..., ~- o:~~:~,......." .ALliE~tARLE PL\CE r" \\ , . ( F:'\ r I II .u!.'c -""- ;... lID DA 08-1913 Released: August 14,2008 WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING BY CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION TO CLARIFY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 332(C)(7)(B) TO ENSURE TIMELY SITING REVIEW AND TO PREEMPT UNDER SECTION 253 STATE AND LOCAL ORDINANCES THAT CLASSIFY ALL WIRELESS SITING PROPOSALS AS REQUIRING A VARIANCE WT Docket No. 08-165 Comment Date: September 15, 2008 Reply Date: September 30, 2008 On July 11, 2008, CTIA - The Wireless Association (CTIA) filed a petition requesting that the Federal Communications Commission ("Commission") issue a Declaratory Ruling clarifying provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") regarding state and local review of wireless facility siting applications.! CTIA seeks clarification of provisions in Section 332( c )(7) of the Communications Act that it contends are ambiguous and that it claims have been interpreted in a manner that has allowed certain zoning authorities to impose unreasonable impediments to wireless facility siting and the provision of wireless services. CTIA also requests that the Commission preempt local ordinances and state laws that it states subject wireless facility siting applications to unique, burdensome requirements, in violation of Section 253( a) of the Communications Act, which bars state and local laws that "prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service."z Specifically, in its petition, CTIA asks the Commission to take four actions relating to the time frames in which zoning authorities must act on siting requests, their power to restrict competitive entry by multiple providers in a given area, and their ability to impose certain procedural requirements on wireless service providers. First, to eliminate an ambiguity that CTIA contends currently exists in Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act, CTIA asks the Commission to clarify the time period in which a state or local zoning authority will be deemed to have failed to act on a wireless facility 1 In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance, Petition for Declaratory Ruling, WT Docket No. 08- 165, filed July 11, 2008 (Petition). 247 U.S.c. S 253(a). Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket number, WT Docket No. 08-165. Copies of the request are also available from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., telephone (800) 378- 3160, facsimile (301) 816-0169, e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998). Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to http:// www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message, "get form." A sample form and directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002. -The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. -All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. -Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. -Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. -U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. -All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Parties shall send one copy of their comments and reply comments to Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554, (800) 378-3160, e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Comments filed in response to this Public Notice will be available for public inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street S.W., Room CY-A257, Washington, D.C. 20554, and via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by entering the docket .1"~\;:~~~~ ~~>n-~ .\ ,v-t..~~;'O'".::-."(-."';'~~:.~'-.-.2'.L~~.= I;-~ ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCESS How does the ARB deal with applications that require Certificates of Appropriateness? May 2008 _~~"'~'"'~~~.r~.~{~~~~;1~~~~~;~:~""';.'- - '~(~~-~~~11~"'S~VI~~?ii1 I"'" TYPES OF APPLICATIONS THAT REQUIRE a CofA o Site Development Plans . includes major & minor amendments o Building Permits . includes permits related to approved site plans . includes mechanical permits . includes sign permits ~7f?1t"~i!&'I!? .- ~ OTHER APPLICATIONS FOR ARB REVIEW o Special Use Permits o Zoning Map Amendments [i~~;~~~Uh~~;.~!~~.it1 ARB REVIEW OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS D ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval. . This includes final approval of site plans, major amendments and minor amendments. D Applicants are encouraged to submit ARB applications when the preliminary site plan application is made. . But they are not required to do so. D ARB review is set up as a 2-step process: start with preliminary, return as final. . When does it take more than 2 visits to the ARB? o If the project is a large one (Example: Albemarle Place) o If the ARB's comments/suggestions aren't followed (Example: original Oakleigh proposa I) '" ARB REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMITS o Two types of projects: 1. Building permit applications that follow site plan approval; for example, new buildings. I. These do not go back to the ARB, but staff reviews them to make sure they match the ARB approved design. 2. Proposals that require a building permit but do not require a site plan or site plan amendment; for example, enclosing a porch. I. These go to the ARB & follow the 2-step process; if simple, may be done in I meeting. ~i~~'~1Li<jo~::5?.!'t'~~Ji:;::: :'V;,.::o:' ,",'~' "';,-~~ J:~' )'.,<. 'f ~~~"\'"\i~:~~1 ...,.. ARB REVIEW OF SIGNS o Signs visible from the EC require CofAs. . Includes wall, freestanding, and window signs. . Temporary signs are not reviewed. o 4.15.15 authorizes the agent to act on a CofA for a sign under certain circumstances. . This allows staff to review/approve most sign applications that are submitted, if they meet the EC guidelines. We still require an ARB application and submittal for these items, for tracking and review purposes. . Some sign applications still have to go to the ARB: o Signs that don't meet the guidelines & applicant won't revise (these sometimes end up as appeals to the BOS) o New illuminated sign for a building that doesn't have, or isn't eligible for, a Comprehensive Sign Reviews (Example: Old Dominion Bank signs) . ARB Display Ads list all applications received, even if staff review/approval is anticipated. r-~~~\\<~~"~~~~~mlli!~l'.:~".~..k~1I ARB REVIEW OF MECHANICAL PERMITS o As a type of building permit, mechanical permits require a CofA. o There are generally 2 types of mechanical permits: . Permits for equipment associated with an ARB-approved building . Permits for replacement equipment o Unless there is a problem (i.e., equipment isn't what the ARB approved or new equipment is more visible than existing equipment), these permits are generally not forwarded to the ARB for review and are handled by staff. ",~~~~!f1i;ft~&~ I..... ARB REVIEW OF SPs and ZMAs o ARB review of SPs and ZMAs is advisory. o Until about a year ago, SPs and ZMAs were automatically forwarded to the ARB. o Staff now provides comments on SPs and ZMAs to the lead planner, unless an unusual situation warrants forwarding the application to the ARB. ~~ed~~i'.~~f~iit<~~~Ji:.~~2,~L."',~~5s). ';;.;.JII "ADMINISTRATIVE" REVIEW o Everyone like "administrative" review . Shorthand for "it needs review but it doesn't have to go the ARB" . Staff deals with it but we don't have to write a staff report . The applicant has a chance of getting through the process quicker o Which applications are available for "administrative" review? . Most signs . Additions or modifications to a building where no substantial change in design or material is proposed as determined by the zoning administrator. (30.6.6.3 Exemptions) . Not enough! Df~~~~i!r~~~~~J~~~4't"-1f-,-:r1?~:~ ~t~~'"i_ ~t _:~~k~~~~~:~::"hj~::~~~:r..w~~ G'l WAYS TO SIMPLIFY REVIEW / APPROV AL in the ECs o Increase applications available for staff administrative review/approval o Process changes SIMPLIFY EC APPROVALS: PROCESS CHANGES o Combine Zoning and ARB applications for signs . (started but not completed) o Revise EC review of mechanical permit applications for existing buildings to include information required for ARB review . (previously discussed but not implemented) o Eliminate EC review of sub-permits for new buildings/additions . (must find a way to ensure that equipment won't be visible and other aspects of approved design haven't changed) o Revise ordinance to: . Allow rejection of incomplete ARB applications . Put an expiration date on ARB approvals . Establish deadlines for ARB resubmittals . Not allow re-submittal of denied proposals, at least for a period of time . ~{tl ~ p SIMPLIFY EC APPROVALS: INCREASE ADMIN REVIEW o New buildings/additions located 2000' or more from the EC . Example: Old Trail o All telecommunications applications . Do these like SPs and ZMAs o "2nd tier" buildings . A building stands between the EC and the proposed site . Example: University Tire at Pantops SIMPLIFY EC APPROVALS: INCREASE ADMIN REVIEW o Minor amendments - both site plan and architectural . For minor changes, but the "doesn't constitute a substantial change in design" exemption doesn't apply . Example: Holiday Inn drop-off canopy o Any building permit that doesn't require a site plan/site plan amendment . Example: R E Lee on Hydraulic o All signs JOINT MEETING OF BOS/PC/ARB May 21,2008 ARB comments and Selected Discussion Topics I / ..~ \ 1.) Boards need to be careful when making decisions based on idealistic, but often unrealistic images and presentations. Some of those presentations can actually misrepresent what will be built. (Hollymeade Town Center fountain is Target mudhole; mountains illustrated as backrop will actually be obscured by development at Crozet Station.) 2.) Boards should be careful in approving projects that exceed the maximum capacity of the site to include not only building and parking, but all required landscaping, clear of utilities and other easements. Frequently ARB comments have had to indicate that the building, and thus the required parking, are too big for the site to accommodate the landscaping required to make the project appropriate for the Entrance Corridor. JOINT MEETING OF BOS/PC/ARB May 21,2008 - Page 2 .===-~ !;-I ~" ,! KENRJDGE _ ! ......- . ,~ Al.[la'~w ~......"... ~.-- ~. v.w north across Me (e.luabng) THE GAINES GROUP, PLC :~ 3.) Some decisions that are made are made for general terms, and when translated into motions or action memos can result in restrictions to the ARB that may have not been intended. (Leyland cypress were required to be part of screening tree mix per special use permit/rezoning drawings, even though that species was preferred to be excluded by ARB. Likewise, the two, tall evergreen trees were required to be preserved after new project developed at Luxor Park could have benefited from alternative plantings at that location). 4.) Regulations without adequate and effective enforcement will be disregarded, and violated, by those most likely to have the worst impact. Ineffective enforcement also makes Boards' efforts meaningless (e.g., ARB has had to initiate actions regarding chain link fences and signs installed without review; other site issues include grading or building first and "asking forgiveness later" sadly negates efforts for any tree preservation). Albemarle County Service Auth'rity ~ =- =>~ Serving' Conserving September 9, 2008 County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors c/o Mr. Robert Tucker, County Executive 401 Mcintire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors' Compensation Dear Supervisors: The Virginia Water & Waste Authorities Act, Virginia Code Section 15.2- 5113 (C) states that "Board members shall receive such compensation as fixed by resolution of the governing body or bodies which are members of the authority, and shall be reimbursed for any actual expenses necessarily incurred in the performance of their duties." The Albemarle County Service Authority's (ACSA) By-Laws, Section 2-4 provides for "....a reasonable compensation for members of the Authority who are not County employees." Since July 1, 1997, ACSA Board members have been compensated $100.00 per regular meeting attended, and $50.00 for each additional meeting attended per month. In addition, Board members have been reimbursed for mileage to and from their homes to attend the meetings. The ACSA interprets the Virginia Water & Waste Authorities Act to require that the County of Albemarle Board of Supervisors must authorize increases in compensation to ACSA Board Members. The ACSA Board of Directors is recommending the following for your consideration: 1. The increase in Board Member compensation, effective July 1, 1997, was not authorized by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. It is requested that the Supervisors authorize the increase in compensation to $100.00 per regular meeting attended and $50.00 for each additional meeting attended per month, retroactive to July 1997. 2. The compensation per meeting be increased to $150.00, effective upon the authorization of the Board of Supervisors. 3. The compensation per meeting be adjusted annually, based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI). This adjustment, if authorized, would occur annually on April 1st. 168 Spotnap Road · Charlottesville, VA 22911 · Tel (434) 977-4511 · Fax (434) 979-0698 .. www.serviceauthority.org 4. The compensation for the ACSA Board of Directors will be reviewed every five years. We appreciate your consideration of these recommendations. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. s/~.").t / Gary W. Fern, P.E. Executive Director GWF:dmg/anw 010101 BoardCompensation082908 Albemarle County Service Auth'ri~ ~"'-- ~~ Serving . Conserving Albemarle County Service Authority Northfields Subdivision A. Sanitary Sewer System: Lot Type Developed Lots Connected to Sewer Developed Lots Not Connected to Sewer by Choice Developed Lots Without Access to Sewer Undeveloped Lots With Access to Sewer Undeveloped Lots Without Access to Sewer Quantity 101 53 56 9 ~ 223 Total Percentaqe 45% 24% 25% 4% 2% 100% B. Connection Charqes: Developed Undeveloped Charqe Lot Lot Local Facilities Charge $3,690 $7,380 System Development Charge $1,532 $1,532 RWSA Capacity Charge $2,425 _$2,425 Total $7,647 $11,337 *Total does not include Service Connection Charges which are invoiced at actual cost and Sewer Lateral Fees for lots in Northfield Sewer Project Phases 1 through 3. 168 Spotnap Road . Charlottesville, VA 22911 · Tel (434) 977-4511 · Fax (434) 979-0698 www.serviceauthority.org f.~ l .... ,...,. C> Df! Iii:: II'i.,.I.,'.I. \.! 1]"1 \V · V '" c~ ~ ,:.:J II! i 111illl! ill ~f'iiij!~~ ~~j !.~.~ :;~11 ~~! ~'i~ ij~~~ [ii iUiKIls () Ql "Q. ~ o ll) A" I 3 -0 ..., o < CD 3 CD ~ Cf) CD ~ CD -s "'U (3 roo ~ I~t ~~ V '~6~~'\ ~q' I, I<f>~ 10.' ~ ~ a > > " " \ I I I \ , , ------ .......-- ,~-.......-....-- ..... r\ , \ \ ,:.~"~~:.~,~..,.,,,.._$,-~"'""'''''''' ~ ~~ I , I , , , I , /- .. , I / \ \ I -1- - -G', \.oO_/-JI \ , - ---, '--'r-;;;\\ \ I ,,' ",0/'0 " V', " \\~...~.;"~"'-"'O~'il.~'li:i=;== ',:\, 0', I ' " ! /'1" '''15'' ! 'iJ>, \ ,/ '" 1.\ , \ 'e \'- i c::c/\ ,/ \\', , \ \-//0_\ \" O-P all\ I. 0 \ I, Ii 'l/9~\ (JJ:,J/ \,\,//\! ': \ '/Il~ "(I \ ~ JJ _' \ 0 \ , \, ~;~ ~'9 \." 0 \, \"0- - - II " i /, , , ,', 'n " "~ , 'e; , , \ ' Ou ,,, , " I ~t\'" , ' " ' ' "-),", ", ' , , Ii, I -" -- , ," " " .r-" I ' , ,-; 'I \\" - _ '-.r' i, Q Q-"m__ ,,:,~/~~ 'u ,eii;:::-,',' 0 I" D ' '(", ,t::)/ <>,~:<) C::::i -',"" , " ' D {J -.~ - - - - - -\ ,/ / l).. / ',I.,. \\ \ / / ;--...~__,:.:.I___ " ~'"'''' -," '''!''! "", ' ! , - -, , "^'" I' "', 'i'-!',,' -"~ ' / ,0 .. /'''-/'', ' _./// /"'" / / ~ / r---.. r ',", ,/ "" V"" , , ~ I Q "'\<~~5:/~\'10\"d\o" i' 'I // / i / / I I:: o """'"':2._...,.._" I I I I I 1_.__ '-"--, 1_-..,. "__ I I I I I (j I I I / I Q--\ /) \ \ o !.." I I I I i , I i ..-~...:.....t 0\ ~" .-;;.- \ \ \ Q ---..j\ :/ I I / ./ \ i 1::J I i ._i...'-' "..( .- "1;J =' !ll III '" (') o ~ en 2' Q. ~ :> 'l:l ~ ~ 3' '" it ro: ::> 10 ?' (l) ~ ... ""l Q. ~' III ., ;;, liT -< en ro ~ ~ :;' ro III :;: .0' 2: .0' ::r in Q. 5' 3 Ill' 10 ro' ::> g o III ro < Q) 3' Q) o tll ,.. ~ l/J C cr 0- ~: 5' ::> If U't :r=- ~' CD r 'f ~.!!. j' "cv CD" o i ,I" /~ -'----" ---........... ............. z o ::1- :::r -to, -- CD - C- en en Q) :J -- .,.- ...- .--~-. . ~--- ,-too. 0> -. '< C/) CD ~ CD ., (f) '< en ,....... ,-- ..."....... t ! r- e ! @ 0 CD c.c ;0 ;0 )> )> "U "U CD ~ ~ ("') ("') .., .... ~ 0 (>> C- oo 00 "0 "'0 00 00 )> )> 0 (>> I~ I; 00 s: CIl CIl Cll Cb Cll t\) 0- c.. Cll t\) :E :::s 00 s: :E :::s Cll :J" ~ Cll :J" :l. 0 01 :::s.. 0 S' m ::3 Cll :r 5' m Cll CIl :::s.. 0 .-" Cll CIl CIl 5' m CIl Cll CIl CIl \ " - ,. , I \ I I , I I I I \ 1 \ \ I I I . I ~ I , I \ I I I \ I I 1 Impact on Albe,marle County I \ r < ~J . , \' ~'; \i Situation"could,worsen'-,doesn'treflect I' anticipa,ted state reductions ~ Ii Despite continued empha?is on savings through ,...., . efficiencies, 'County' rnust~go beyond efficiencies to examine reductions in service levels 1_- - - - -- --- - " .. , Projected FY 08/09 shortfalr: $';l.1 million ;: .,( .... .. . ',' ~ .. $V!..rnillion fo'r schools _ Jl' $1.~million for local g?vernment _$300,000 for capital " How We Got Here .. -;.-?" '"*' _. .~~. 's Jr,' Snortfall 'reflects ,approximately 1.8% of the total Gerie'ral, '.i , F~ndDudget" " , -"! .' ';, ,';, .~, " (^ ,..,.. Es~imated,Real~Estat~'Ia_x rev,e!lues . . ~ ,M less thanqudgeted ,due to greater than anticipated decline in housingva.lues ? ,'/, < - - Est. P~rsonal Property & Vehicle License Tax,revenues iii 'Iessthan bu'dgeted due to a greater than anticipated decline in , new vehicle sales and the.varues of used vehicles', - . Estimated Sales Tax revenues. . , \'.t: .; less than budgeted due to the continued mi nlmal growth in the. local and regional economy c..... · /- .~ .~l ~/. ! !' Lu (. ..'j' .'1 !' i ':1 I I ,I j 2 1 , I / How We ResP9nded: FY08 , /!' j." !i UtilizedFiye-:Y~ar'Financial Plan to, address long7term '" financial issues" ' . . I' .' ., Limited department baseline operations to 2%, which is below the rate of inflation' . Held:back purchases of small capital items " ~ " e.g. furniture and small equipment ..' / -WI Enacted significant savings and efficiel")cy measures totaling $1.49 million: " , Ii 17 frozen or eliminated positions: $1.0 million ij Program &Service Review: $490,000 , : _ EXtended computer and vehicle replacement cycles ~ Other operational efficiencies 3 .. I, '.~ " '.' ~ ~ I How We're Responding: FY09 :,.,- <;ontin~ing mul.ti~year Program & Service Review External Reviews ' '" compiete'a Budget Process l3-eview Committee . " Conducting Local Government Resource Utilization Study ~ ,~ ~;~;rvice Irn'r;k1c.t, III Services with direct health and public safety impacts will be maintained " ; . ('; Existing staff and resources are being redirected to meet the. County's most critical needs / ..'. , H Some services will be provided by existing employees at lower levels of service " Expansion of some core programs will be delayed .' Some enhanced initiatives will be delayed L I 'I I I I _J -" ! Staff Recommended FY09 ,Budge~ Adjustments I. ..~, .t~ .,,/' '.~ ~roj~~ted shortfall ~ Current shortfall ' ~ Additional S!ate re,duc;tions .," "!"otal,. r / H Recommended Adjustments t.." IiI1 15 additio~ai frozen positions i' -; 11 ~ ./ '.~ ~ ' , ~ Use oflo~k,box (@40%) / .' ,. Total""> .. ,,$1.4 mil 1-1", $1.4+ $ .870 ~.. $1.476 I , , ,I I I 4 L_ -- . . .~, Projected FYiO Shortfall I: -Based on Bo~rd Ap~roved 5-Year Financi~J Plan- -' Projected FY10 Financial Model Shortfall -' r"c $6.~ mil/ion, with?,ut additional State reductions I f' ? I I I Approv,e d 5;;.Yr F'inandal Plan., AS5umption"sL FY10 l't Tax increases; 1 cent 'increase for both FY10 & FYll budgets Iii! Continuedsavings from 17 positions frozen in FY08 MI Additional police officers, two new fire/rescue" stations 'j Additional funding for Housing, Transit, other new initiatives .. Other operating impacts of capital projects , , , . , Bottom Line for tylO ." Even with no new initiatives, 32 ;frozen or eliminated positions (FY08 & FY 09) - - - still projecting a shortfall of approximately $2.5 million ~ *The County's Leadership Council has by consensus recommended that no new departmental initiatives be submitted this year despite I continuing needs based on the financial situation ~ ---- --- - ~._- I r:~ . IJlf Currer]trevenues ~re inadequate to meet budgeted expenditures" situation could worsen ' 1_ · Ctountyt' has' bt~te'h~ and will ~onthiriUlle to take proactive' . s eps, 0 mE?e., IS eC9nomlc;c a enge,- .' '. Despite significant:savings)ju~ing last year's budget ~,. process,Countywill need to make ~hallenging.choices to r~ ~ meet obligations in tilis fiscal year' I' .. Cost saving. measures will impact some service levels ' and delay some initiatives . , -:,1iI V Decisions in the current'fiscaryear will have cumulative impacts on subsequent fiscal years Sumn'lary ,> ,,~:. ~- .~ ~ 5 - I. I ,- I ~.~_.-._--.~ I; ~: ~- Communication j' II ,Upcoming Mee~.lngs: ~ ,BOS overView - BOS/5B Joint meeting ~ ' on Compensation lii Strategic Planning Retreat f.-" 5-Year'Fin,ancial Plan Review I L- .' , 'Sept 10 , Oct 1 1 Oct 24 , Nov/Dee , 6 I , I I I , I , I I I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Financial Status Update AGENDA DATE: September 10, 2008 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Provide information and request feedback on current financial status and County response ACTION: x INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: LEGAL REVIEW: Yes BACKGROUND: As a result of the economic difficulties being experienced both nationally and locally, County staff has been examining revenue projections to determine how our operating budgets will be impacted. These projections, along with recommendations for addressing budget shortfalls, will be discussed during the work session. The tentative agenda for the work session is listed below: · The current economic situation and the impact on Albemarle County · How the County is responding · Recommendations moving forward Additional materials will be provided to the Board bye-mail on Monday, September 8th and at the Board meeting on September 10th. STRATEGIC PLAN: 5.1 Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County's growing needs. Fact Sheet - Board of Supervisors Work Session Overarching realities: · The nation is struggling a with significant economic downturn and Albemarle County is not immune - housing market downturn has created significant drag on economic growth and affected other county revenues like sales taxes, etc. - the duration and severity of the downturn is still unknown but is anticipated to go through FY 2010 · Although we expected and planned for reduced revenues, and enacted significant savings during the FY09 budget process, the situation is more serious and challenging than anticipated at the national, state and local levels last year - revenues for FY 2008- 09 currently projected to be short of budget by approximately $4.1 million, may decline further · Albemarle County has always stressed efficiencies (as is indicated by the county's Aaa bond rating, comparison of Albemarle's per capita expenditures with other peer counties, our tax rate compared to other comparable counties, etc.) but localities and the state itself face an extraordinary situation where we must go beyond efficiencies to a level that impacts our services · An important consideration in responding to this situation is acknowledging the effects ofthe economic downturn on taxpayers and businesses in our community _ people are being seriously affected by these circumstances · County leadership maintains confidence that we have taken the appropriate steps and have the fiscal tools and innovative spirit to meet these economic uncertainties What does this mean/or Albemarle County? · Weare facing a dramatic reduction in new revenues for county as a whole _ schools and local government - as compared to the last several years, reductions are more significant than were projected last year at this time · It should be noted that this is an evolving situation so changes can be expected in these numbers, for example they do not reflect anticipated reductions in state funding o Projected FY 08/09 shortfall: $4.1 million · $2.4 million for schools · $1.4 million for local government · $300,000 for capital · Albemarle will be severely challenged to meet budgeted expenditures during the current fiscal year · Service levels will be affected by adjustments that will be required to make up for revenue reductions How did we get here? · Shortfall in the current budget reflects approximately 1.8% of the total general fund budget · Estimated Real Estate Tax revenues are less than budget due to greater than anticipated decline in housing values · Estimated Personal Property and Vehicle License Tax revenues are less than budget due to a greater than anticipated decline in new vehicle sales and the values of used vehicles · Estimated Sales Tax revenues are less than budget due to the continued minimal growth in the local and regional economy How We Are Responding Proactive steps taken in FY08 in anticipation of reduced revenues · Utilized Five- Year Financial Plan to address long-term financial issues · Limited department baseline operations to 2%, which is below the rate of inflation · Held back purchases of small capital items o e.g. furniture and small equipment · Enacted significant savings and efficiency measures totaling $1.49 million: o 17 frozen or eliminated positions: $1.0 million o Program & Service Review: $490,000 · Extended computer and vehicle replacement cycles · Other operational efficiencies Response in Current FY 09 Continuing cost savings measures enacted in FY08 · Hiring freeze expanded to an additional 15 positions · May further expand given potential state reductions · Reviewing fee structures to maximize cost recovery and fund frozen positions where possible · Consideration of use of "lockbox" funds . Other reductions Departments preparing 5% contingency plans in case of severe state reductions Significantly reducing spending on travel, training and other discretionary items and where possible, overtime Implementing efforts to improve buildings' energy efficiency and reduce fuel consumption to offset substantial cost increases · Continuing multi-year Program & Service Review . External Reviews · Completed Budget Process Review Committee · Conducting Local Government Resource Utilization Study Summary · Current revenues are inadequate to meet budgeted expenditures, situation could worsen · County has been and will continue to take proactive steps to meet this economic challenge, and is dedicated to avoiding layoffs · Despite significant savings during last year's budget process, County will need to make challenging choices to meet obligations in this fiscal year · Cost saving measures will impact some service levels and delay some initiatives · Decisions in the current fiscal year will have cumulative impacts on subsequent fiscal years · All areas of expenditure are on the table for review, including compensation I I I I " BOARD OF DIRECTORS' MEETING Albemarle County Office Building Room 241 September 10, 2008 3:00 P.M. AGENDA (Amended), 1. Call to Order and Establish a Quorum 2. Joint Meeting with Board of Supervisors a. Discussion: Do connection fees adequately compensate cost of capital improvements? b. Provision of service in the Growth Areas (Northfields, Carrsbrook and Oak Hill) c. Albemarle Place · status of sewer service · status of Meadow Creek Interceptor d. North Fork Sewer Project · status of engineering design · status of financial plan e. Compensation of Directors *** All items for discussion as time permits 3. Recess to 4th Floor Conference Room - Strategic Planning 4. Adjourn