HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-17 ACTIONS
Board of Supervisors Meeting of February 17, 1999
February 19, 19
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
Call to order.
Others Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public.
--Roger Schweikert expressed several concern
about the Chesterfield and Springridge
subdivisions.
SP-98-61. Triton Communications. APPROVED with
six conditions. Also, APPROVED red~ction in
setback in accordance with provisions of Section
4.10.3.1.
Set public hearing for March 17, 1999, for public
hearing to grant gas line easement. SET PUBLIC
HEARING for March 17, 1999.
Proclamation recognizing the week of February 22
- February 26, 1999, as Eligibility Worker
Appreciation Week. ADOPTED.
ZMA-98-17. Ashcroft Phase 6 (Sign #75).
APPROVED, making special notice to include the
specific points made by staff as to
justifications for the recommendation. Also,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION OF INTENT to amend Comp Plan.
PUBLIC HEARING on FY 1999/2000-FY 2003/2004
Capital Improvements Program. HELD PUBLIC
HEARING. Scheduled to be adopted April 14.
Appointments.
--Reappointed Bruce Kirtley to Piedmont Housing
Alliance, with said term to begin 1/2/99 and to
expire 12/2/2002.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
--Referring to a letter that was not distributed
to the Clerk, the Board asked that a letter be
sent in support of the housing project for the
elderly, and the use of Federal income tax
credits.
Not Docketed: The Board went into Executive
Session at 8:25 p.m.
The Board certified the Executive Session and
adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
ASSIGNMENT
Meeting was called to Order at 7:02 p.m.
by the Vice-Chairman. All BOS members
present except Mr. Martin and Mr.
Marshall.
Planninq staff: Meet with
Roger Schweikert to respond to his
questions and concerns.
Clerk:
Include in letter to Planning.
Clerk: Forward signed proclamation to
K. Ralston.
Clerk: Include in letter to Planning.
County Exec staff: Meet with
Marsha Joseph to respond to her
questions.
Clerk: Update Board/Commission records,
send appointment letters to appropriate
persons.
County Exec staff: Send letter to
appropriate person.
None.
None.
County Attorney: Provide Clerk with
language to advetise public hearing.
David R Bowerman
Charlotte Y. Humphr/s
Jack Jouett
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
COUNTY OF Al REMARi F.
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
MEMORANDUM
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter E Perkins
White
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
To:
From:
Subject:
Date:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of P%anning and Community Development
Laurel B. Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk
February 17, 1999 Board of Supervisors Meeting
February 22, 1999
The following actions were taken by the Board at its meeting on
February 17, 1999:
Item No. 5.1. SP-98-61. Triton Communications. APPROVED with six
conditions as follow:
1. The monopole, supporting cables, and antennas shall be the same
color as the existing power line tower;
2. The tower shall be limited to a total of nine (9) panel antenna at
a maximum height of 137-1/2 feet above ground level;
3. Attachment to the power line tower shall be in general accord with
the plan titled ~Vepco Tower #20-28 CV-1-306A" attached to this report and
initialed SET 11/10/98, which has been modified to reflect a change in antenna
mounting height in accordance with Condition #2 above;
4. The permittee shall submit a report to the Zoning Administrator
once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report shall
identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless
telecommunications service provider;
5. The antenna on the tower shall be disassembled and removed from the
site within ninety (90) days of the date their use for wireless
telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
6. The existing lattice tower shall not be fenced.
Also, APPROVED reduction in setback in accordance with provisions of
Section 4.10.3.1.
Printed on recycled paper
Item 5.2. Set public hearing for March 17, 1999, for public hearing to
grant gas line easement. SET PUBLIC HEARING for March 17, 1999.
Item 5.5. 1998 Fourth Quarter Building Report as prepared by the
Department of Planning and Community Development. ACCEPTED FOR INFOP,~ATIO~.
Item 5.6. 1998 Year End Building Report as prepared by the Department of
Planning and Community Development. ACCEPTED FOR INFORF~%TION.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-98-17. Ashcroft Phase 6 (Sign ~75). APPROVED,
making special notice to include the following specific points made by staff as
to justifications for the recommendation:
1. The distribution of lots as proposed by the applicant essentially allows
the lots to become part of and appear to be a part of the existing Ashcroft
development;
2. The lot sizes proposed for the smaller lots are consistent with the
adjacent lot sizes in Ashcroft. The slngle 17 acre parcel proposed south
of the power line is consistent with the lot sizes south of the power line
and east of Lego Drive;
3. Retention of a single large parcel south of the power line will tend to
have less of an impact on a Locust Shade which has been surveyed and noted
as potentially register eligible;
4. Retention of a Rural Area at the.intersection, as opposed to a subdivision
at the intersection on Hansen's Mountain Road and Lego Drive will help to
preserve the rural character of the area including the entrance to Ashcroft
and ~areas on Hansen's Mountain Road east of Lego Drive;
5. If the area south of the power line were to be developed in accordance with
the existing Comprehensive Plan (3 to 6 dwellings units per ace) it would
likely be difficult to justify retention of a Rural Area between such a
development and the existing Ashcroft development; and
6. The area south of the power line can be reasonably used for agriculture
based on its size and an analysis of the soils on the property.
Also, ADOPTED RESOLUTION OF I~E~T to amend the Comprehensive Plan (copy
attached).
Agenda Item No. 7. Public hearing on FY 1999-2000 FY 2003/2004 Capital
Improvements Program. HELD PUBLIC HEARING. Scheduled to be adopted
April 14, 1999.
/lbh
Attachment
CC:
Larry Davis
Amelia McCulley
Bill Mawyer
Bruce Woodzell
Dan Mahon
Sharon Taylor
John Grady
Janice Farrar
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BOARD OF SUPF RVI,.,e"
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 98-61 Triton Communications/Vepco (River Bend)
SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Proposal to install 9 (nine) 5-foot PCS antennas at a VEPCO
site, at the top of a monopole to be erected within the existing
transmission (lattice)tower, at a requested height of 17-1/2
feet above the existing tower. The site is located on the
south side of Route 250 East at the intersection of Riverbend
Drive, on the Clean Machine car wash property. The existing
power line is nonconforming, and thus approval of a special
use permit is required in order for an additional use to be
established on the tower.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg,Benish
AGENDA DATE:
February 17, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED BY:
ITEM NUMBER:
IN FORMATION:
INFORMATION:
Yes
BACKGROUND:
At the meeting of January 20, 1999, the Board of Supervisors asked Triton PCS to provide the following information: 1 ) the
lowest height at which the proposed monopole would be functional; and, 2) the appearance of the base of the lattice tower with
the monopole installed.
DISCUSSION:
The applicant has provided information addressing these two requests. Via e-mail dated February 4, 1999 (Attachment A), Mr.
George Cummings of Triton indicated that the lowest height that Virginia Power will permit installation of the PCS equipment
is five (5) feet above the highest existing wire on the tower. Mr. Cummings also provided photographs of similar sites in the
Richmond area showing the appearance of the base of the lattice tower with the monopole installed, and associated equipment
(Attachment B). A letter from Katherine Farmer, Vepco Engineering, is included as Attachment C.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff's Original recommendation was for approval, subject to conditions. At the meeting of January 5, 1999, the Planning
CommisSion recommended denial of SP 98-61, by a vote of 4 to 2.
Should the Board decide to approve the special use permit at a height of five (5) feet above the existing lattice tower, staff has
included below the original recommended conditions of approval, with modifications to Condition #2 reflecting this change in
mounting height.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The monopole, supporting cables, and antennas shall be the same color as the existing power line tower;
2. The tower shall be limited to a total of nine (9) panel antenna at a maximum height of 44-7-1J~2-feet 137-1/2 feet above ground
level;
Attachment to the power line tower shall be in general accord with the plan titled '¥epco Tower #20-28 CV-1-306A" attached
to this report and initialed SET 11/10/98, which has been modified to reflect a change in antenna mounting height in
accordance with Condition #2 above;
The permittee shall submit a report to the zoning administrator once per year, by not later than July 1 of that year. The report
shall identify each user of the tower and shall identify each user that is a wireless telecommunications service provider;
AGENDA TITLE:
SP 98-61 Triton CommunicationsNepco (River Bend)
February 17, 1999
Page 2
5. The antenna on the tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within ninety (90) days of the date their use for
wireless telecommunications purposes is discontinued;
6. The existing lattice tower shall not be fenced.
A reduction in setback in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.10.3.1 is also requested with this special use permit, and
a separate action is needed for that request.
Attachments:
A- February 4, 1999 e-mail from George Cummings, with Attachment
B - Photographs of similar sites
C -January 26, 1999 letter from Katherine Farmer, Vepco
Cc:
Mr. George Cummings, Triton PCS
Mr. Steve Blaine, Esq., McGuire Wood
99.024
J.~TTACHPIENT AI
From: George Cumming [$MTP:Gcummin_~@tritonpcs.com] <mailto:[SMTP:Gcummin_~@tritonpcs.com_'l>
Sent: Thursday, February 04, 1999 12:28 PM
To: 'sthomas@mail.co.albemarle.va.us'
Cc: 'swblaine@mwbb.com'
Subject:
<< RF Antennas.doc>>
Dear Susan:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with me Tuesday in regards to our proposed facility onthe Riverbend/Carwash VA
Power structure located along Rt. 250. To answer your questions, the lowest height that VA Power will let us place our
platform and related antennas is five feet from the top of the highest wire. The letter I left with you explains their safety
concerns, The drawing I left you outlines the height of the existing structure at 130 ft, with the small center pole extending
five feet to a platform and the antennas extending five feet from the platform. As stated, we rs-designed our antenna
configuration based on the Board's apparent acceptance of the photo we passed to them. This configuration, I believe,
visually appears to be lighter and looks more in line with the nature of lattice structure. We will be dropping off additional
photos today of some existing five and fifteen foot extensions found near the intersection of Paraham Rd. and River Road
in Henrico County. In addition, you will find some photos of the base of similar towers and equipment cabinets.
In regards to antenna arrays that will reduce the spatial separation between the antenna, I believe a "cluster mount" will
have a greater visual impact on the intersection then the antennas as proposed. A cluster mount consists of 3 sectors of
antenna grouped tightly together. The configuration will be several feet in diameter and would appear to be a solid mass
when seen from a distance. A cluster configuration will be seen from a distance past the point where our four inch wide
antennas will disappear into the horizon. Generally we have found the cluster mount more appealing to the public when
we ars mounting to a traditional wide Iow monopole. In addition, a cluster or dual polarization antenna array would further
limit our coverage. I have attached additional information prepared by an RF engineer on the limitations of such antennas.
We appreciate the staff noticing the reduction in the height of the Riverbend site will create a gap in coverage in the Peter
Jefferson Office park. I met with the developer last Friday and unfortunately found that the new building that the county is
reviewing would is to far way away from Rt. 250 to fill this gap and at three stories, would do little to supplement our
coverage on 1-64. The existing building on Rt. 250 is at such a Iow elevation that we would be unable to use it. There are
no other buildings being proposed in the near future that would meet our needs. Meanwhile, our team continues to search
for existing structures that will eliminate the need to build towers on raw land. Again, thanks for your suggestion.
Please contact me if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
George A. Cumming
RF Antennas.doc
Spacial Diversi _ty
Triton uses a standard installation on most all of the sites within their PCS network to achieve the most
effective seamless coverage with the least amount of sites. The standard installation implements a three-
sector site utilizing three antennas per each of these three sectors for a total of nine antennas per complete
site. The three antenna array used in each sector are composed of two receive antennas, (Rx) spaced 10'
apart from each other with a single transmit antenna, (Tx) located in the middle spaced 5' from each of the
other antennas. The configuration looks like such:
10'
Rx Tx Rx
Due to the diverse terrain and tree foliage in the Charlottesville area, the RF signal being transmitted and
received are constantly being scattered and distorted by passing through these environmental
characteristics. This scattering of RF signal results in variable signals being received at the base station
antenna location. For the base station to compensate for these scattered signals being received, two receive
antennas are deployed, with them spaced 10' apart from each other to receive separate diverse signals. The
spacing between the two receive antennas are calculated to 10' based upon RF guidelines from the antenna
manufacturers to achieve the optimal coverage performance for the site. Each of these separate received
signals from the mobile user are then manipulated and combined at the base station to achieve the strongest
signal possible for the site.
If this three antenna array can not be obtained, the receive and transmit elements of the antennas are then
combined onto a single antenna. This individual antenna does not have the advantage of receiving two
separate signals into each of its receive antennas, instead, RF signals are only received at one location.
With the use of this single antenna versus the three antenna array, there will result in a 3dB loss in coverage
that will greatly effect the grade of service for the mobile user at the cell edge, resulting in dropped calls
and poor signal quality.
Each cell site has a link budget associated with it. A link budget is composed of all the varying losses and
gains associated with cables, connectors, antennas and all other components that embody an operational
cell site. The link budget is used to balance the path between the signals being transmitted from the
antenna array to the mobile user, (downlink) and also the path from the mobile user to the antenna array,
(uplink). A balanced path in RF signal between the user and the antenna array is desired so the signal
quality is equivalent in both directions resulting in comparative voice quality for users at either end on the
conversation. The 3dB diversity gain is one of the many components that make up the link budget. If the
3dB can not be attained, the uplink path will be unbalanced from the downlink.
One solution to compensate for some of this loss is to have the antennas raised higher in the air. By raising
the antennas, they can have a better view of the coverage area for the site. By having this better view from
above, the signal passes through fewer trees and other environmental characteristics. By having the signal
not pass through so many obstructions, the base station antenna can receive a clean unscattered signal. If
Triton can not compensate for the losses in signal strength associated from using the single antenna versus
the three antenna array, there will develop a hole in Triton's network which will then have to served by
using a separate tower to fully achieve their coverage requirements for the county.
JAN, -26' 99 (TUE}
1:~:57 TR~M. LINES
TEL:8042574889
P. 002
January 26. 1999
John Leahy
Entel Technologies
9211 Arboretum Parkway, Suite 200
Richmond, VA 23236
RE: Triton-Richmond Rd CV-1-306A
Dear Mr. Leahy,
The Richmond Road site has been designed for a 15-foot extension above the top of the
existing tower. The FWT Powermount platform can be designed to mount between $
and 1,5 feet above the top of the tower. Due to physical and electrical clearances
specified by the NESC, the platform should be at least 5 feet above the top of the tower.
Virginia Power must maintain these clearances to provide a safe working environ ment at
all of our transmission sites.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (804) 257-4051.
Sincerely,
Katherine Farmer
Transmission .Engineering
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OARD OF SUPERVISORS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Gas Line Easement
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Authorization for
Public Headng to Grant Gas Line Easement
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker/Davis
AGENDA DATE:
February 17, 1999
ACTION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
'ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
ACTION: x INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
REVIEWED B'~~'-'-'"'-"
BACKGROUND:
The City of Charlottesville has requested that the County grant it an easement to enable the placement
of gas transmission lines across two parcels of property jointly owned by the City and County in the Ivy
Creek Natural Area. These lines are to be placed alongside existing lines and the easements will follow
the paths of existing City owned gas lines.
DISCUSSION:
The Virginia Code requires that the County hold a public hearing prior to authorizing the granting of an
easement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board authorize a public headng to be advertised for March 17, 1999.
99.025
ELIGIBILITY WORKER APPRF, CIA TION WEEK
WHE~AS,
Virginia's landmark ~velfare reform legislation bas significantly impacted the services provided
by o~r local elig~ity workers, calling upon them to creatively promote individual self-snfj~ciency
and personal responsibility; and
IVHEREAS, Albemarle County continues to experience unprecedented implementation of complex policies and
procedures in all major benefit programs; and
WHEREAS,
Albemarle County's 21 eligibility ~oorkers have been at the forefront of public ~fforts to meet that
need, steadily maintaining a bigb rate of application processing to ensure that those qualified for
social services receive them; and
WrHEREAS,
approximately 1017 children are served monthly through the Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families, Medicaid and Food Stamp Programs, depending on the dedication and commitment of
eh~ibility workers who handle their cases in an accurate and timely manner; and
grHEREAS, our eligibility ~rkers are continually faced with reconciling an environment of rapidly changing
policies, procedures, and technological advances with quality control requirements;
NO IV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that I, Charles S. Martin, Chairman, on behalf°f the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do
hereby commend all eligibility workers in the County of Albemarle for a job ~oell done and
recognize the ~oeek of
February 22 through February 26, 1999,
as
ELIGIBILITY WORKER APPRECIATION WEEK
and call upon all County residents to join in acknowledging their public service and contributions
on this 17th day of February, 1999.
CHARLES S. MARTIN, CHAIRMAN
ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS
1998
FOURTH QUARTER
BUILDING REPORT
LII.
III.
IV.
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
INDEX
Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B)
Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C& D)
Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E)
Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F-H)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF
SFA
SF/TH
DUP
MF
MHC
AA
Single-Family (includes modular)
Single-Family Attached
Single-Family Townhouse
Duplex
Multi-Family
Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
Accessory Apartment
-2-
During the fourth quarter of 1998, 157 permits were issued for 157 dwelling units. In addition, 7 permits
were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $17,500.
I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
MONTH 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
JAN 56 64 183 49 190 50 26 54 38
FEB 68 31 72 56 53 43 44 44 39
MAR 92 57 64 58 72 47 61 57 65
APR 82 62 72 76 69 46 71 75 62
MAY 75 44 62 45 60 41 63 118 65
JUN 85 54 48 79 70 62 41 89 85
JUL 42 58 62 81 186 51 87 71 74
AUG 87 58 126 116 49 44 105 34 221
SEP 90 55 48 45 47 56 64 52 68
OCT 48 39 43 68 51 42 186 216 61
NOV 37 42 49 65 60 66. 43 49 48
DEC 42 50 37 67 32 48 44 62 48
TOTAL 804 614 866 805 939 596 835 921 874
Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
240
220
200
160
140
120
100
g0
60
40
20
0
JAN
IChart B:
Three 'Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by Month
FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
111996~199701998 ~
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources
4th Quarter, 1998
Ilo COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. D.U.
R~O ~ o o oI oI 0 o 3 2°/°
JACK JOUETT 5 0 I 0 Of 0 0 0 5 3%
RIVANNA 60, 9i 6I 0i 0 2 0 77 49%
SAMUEL MILLER I 18 j 0 ~ 0 0 0 2 0 20 13%
SCOTTSVILLE 20, 2 0 0 0 2 0 24 15%
WHITE HALL 24 2 0 0 0 1 I 28 18%
TOTAL 1271 13 6 0 0 7 I 157 100%
Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS
0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 8
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 5 I 0 0 0 0 0 6
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 7 2 0 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4I
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 (~ 0
CROZET COMMUNITY 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 13
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY · 21 4 0 0 0 0 (~ 25
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 41
RIVANNA VILLAGE 19 0 0 0 0 0 n 191
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 71 13 6 0 0 0 (~ 901
RURAL AREA 1 16 0 0 0 0 I 1
RURAL AREA 2 13 0 0 0 0 2 0
RURAL AREA $ 16 0 0 0 O
RURAL AREA 4 14 0 0 0 0 4 0
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 59 0 0 0 0 7 1~ 67
TOTAL 130 13 6 0 0 7 I 157
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development. Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources
4th Quarter, t998
I1[ COMPARISON OF ALI. BUILDING PERMITS
Chart E, Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial Distdct and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES.' NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$ No. Amounts No. Amount-$ No. I Amount-$
TOTAL 157 26,213,553 200 3,919,219 25 3,902,117 105 3,249,857 487 37,284,746
* Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing perks is included in Residential Alteration Category.
IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
Chart F. Breakdow~ of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
SCHOOL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT
DISTRICT I SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. TOTAL D.U.
Agnor-Hurt 11 3 13 (~ ~ 0 0 27 10.51%
Broadus Wood/Sutheriand 12 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 12' 4.67%
Broadus Wood/Joueff 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 12, 4.67%
Brownsville 5i 5 0 0 0 0 0 11 4.28%
Crozet 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Gmer 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.39%
Hollymead 5i 7 0 0 0 0 0 12 4.67%
Meriwether Lewis/Henley 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.75%
Meriwether Lewis/Jouett Ii 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 I 0.39%
Murray 11~ 2 0 (~ {~ 0 0 13 5.06%
Red Hill 4i 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1.56%
Cale/Eurley 0 0 0 0 {~ 0 0 0; 0.00%
Cale/Waiton 20i 5 0 0 0 0 0 25 9.73%
Scottsville 3 0 0 0 (~ 0 0 3 1.17%
Stone Robinson/Burley 20 0 0 (~ 01 0 0 20 7.78%
Stone Robinson/Walton 4 0 0 (~ 01 0 0 4 1.56%
Stony Point]Burley 21 0 0 0 0i I 0 3 1.17%
Sto~y Point/Sutherland 81 0 0 O 961 0 0 104 40.47%
Woodbrook 3~ 0 0 0 01 0 0 3 1.17%
Yancey I 0 0.00%
TOTAL 125 22 13 ' 01 96 I 0 .257 100.00%
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources
4th Quarter, 1998
IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued)
Chart G. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA
RIO 4 0 0 0 96 0 0 100;
JACK JOUETT 2 0 0 0 0 I 0 3
RIVANNA 49 10 13 0 0 00 72
SAMUEL MILLER 27 4 0 0 0 0 01 31
SCOTTSVILLE 18 3 0 0 0 ~1 0, 21
WHITE HALL 25 5 0 0 0 ~ 0i 30
TOTAL 125 22 13 0 96 I 0 257
Chart H. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL
SF SFA ~ SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 1 (~ 01 0 0 0 0 1
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 1 ti 3 131 0 96 0 0 122
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 0 0 0 OI 0 0 0 0
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 11 3 0 0; 0 0 0 14
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 0 2 (3 0~ 0 0 0 11
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 4 2 (3 01 0 0 0 6
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0J 0~ 0 0 0 0
CROZET COMMUNITY S 5 01 0 0 0 0 14
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 9 2i ' 0, 0, 0 0 0 11
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 5
RIVANNA VILLAGE 14 0i 0~ 0 0 0 0 14
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 67~ 22~ 13 0 96 0 0 198
RURAL AREA 1 15; oi o o o
o
o
16
RUI:~L AREA 2 15 0 0 0 0 1 0 10
RURAL AREA 3 18 O' 0 0 0 0 0 18
RURAL AREA 4 9 01 O, 0 0 0 0 g
Oi 0 0 0 1 0 59
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL 58I
TOTAL 1251 22 13 0 96 1 0 257
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources
1998
YEAR END
BUILDING REPORT
II.
III.
IV.
County of Albemarle
Department of Planning and Community Development
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5823
INDEX
Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month (Charts A & B)
Comparison of Residential Dwelling Units by Type (Charts C& D)
Comparison of All Building Permits (Chart E)
Comparison of Certificates of Occupancy (Charts F-H)
KEY TO TYPES OF HOUSING REFERRED TO IN REPORT
SF
SFA
SF/TH
DUP
MF
MHC
AA
Single-Family (includes modular)
Single-Family Attached
Single-Family Townhouse
Duplex
Multi-Family
Mobile Home in the County (not in an existing park)
Accessory Apartment
Dudng the year of 1998, 704 permits were issued for 874 dwelling units. In addition 30 permits
were issued for mobile homes in existing parks at an average exchange value of $2,500, for a total of $75,000.
I. COMPARISON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS BY MONTH
Chart A. Nine Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
MONTH 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
JAN 56 64 183 49 190 50 26 54 38
FEB 68 31 72 56 53 43 44 44 39
MAR 92 57 64 58 72 47 61 57 65
APR 82 62 72 76 69 46 71 75 62
MAY 75 44 62 45 60 41 63 118 65
JUN 85 54 48 79 70 62 41 89 85
JUL 42 58 62 81 186 51 87 71 74
AUG 87 58 126 116 49 44 105 34 221
SEP 90 55 48 45 47 56 64 52 68
OCT 48 39 43 68 51 42 186 216 61
NOV 37 42 49 65 60 66 43 49 48
DEC 42 50 37 67 32 48 44 62 48
TOTAL 804 614 866 805 939 596 835 921 874
Chart B. Three Year Comparison of New Residential Dwelling Units by Month
IChart B: Three Year Comparison of New Residential D.U. by MonthI
24O
220
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
40
20
0
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
MONTH
111996 ~1997 01998
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Develooment, Office of Mapping, Graphics. and Information Resources
-3-
YEARLY TOTALS, t 998
II, COMPARISON OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
Chart C. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL % TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. D.U.
RIO 13 0 0 0 20 0 0 33 4%
JACK JOUETT 13 0 0 0 0 0 I 14
RIVANNA 227 33 42 0 164 5 5 476 54%
SAMUEL MILLER 98 8 0 0 0 2 I 109 12%
SCOTTSVILLE 94 8 0 0 0 8 0 110 13%
WHITE HALL 114 14 0 0 0 3 1 132 15%
TOTAL 559 63 42 0 184 18 8 874 100%
Chart D. Breakdown of New Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DVVELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL
SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 3 0 0 0 20 (3 0 23;
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 31 4 34 0 0 0 01 6S
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 10 3 0 0 164 (3 0j 177
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 40 8 0 0 0 (3 01 48
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 30 6 0 0 0 0J 0 3~
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 12 2 0 0 0 (3 01 14
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0
CROZET COMMUNITY 34 14 0 0 0 0 0 48:
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 74 12 8 0 (3 0 2 96
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 14 0 (3 (30 0 14
RIVANNA VILLAGE 62 0 0 (3 13 0 63
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 296 63 42 (3 184 0 3 588
RURAL AREA 1 74 0 0 (3 01 3 2 79
RURAL AREA 2 46 0 0 (3 OI 5 2 53
RURAL AREA 3 80 0 (3 (~ 0 0 1 81
RURAL AREA 4 63 O O 0 0 10 0 73
RURAl. AREA SUBTOTAL 263 (3 (3 01 0 18 5 286
TOTAL 55g 63 42 0i 184 18 8 874
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources
YEARLY TOTALS, 1998
lit. COMPARISON OF ALL BUILDING PERMITS
Chart E. 'Estimated Cost of Construction by Magisterial District and Construction Type
MAGISTERIAL NEW *NEW NON-RES. NEW COMMERCIAL FARM BUILDING TOTAL
DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL & ALTER. RES. & NEW INSTITUT. & ALTER. COMM.
No. Amount-$ No. Amourtt-$ No. Amount..$ No. Amount-$ No. Amount-$
RIO 14 3,320,851 80 71~1.,980 15 3,887,110 96 8,329,383 205 16,322,324
JOUETT 13 3,540r000 63 1,493,204 5 3,073,050 11 338,000 92 8,444,254
RIVANNA 322 50,574,353 225 4,458,640 29 I 16,192,500 97 5,791,576 673 77,017,069
S. MILLER 113 22,462,599 194 6,177,250 9 1,117,909 38 2,114,529 354 31,872,287
SCOTTSVILLE 110 11,128,966 151 4,070,458 15 j 14,876,500 42 14,244,590 318 44,320,514
WHITE HALL 132 22,521,854 170 4,098,406 5 I 117,941 34 2,521,739 341 29,259,940
TOTAL 704 113,548,623 883 21,082,938 78 39,265,010 318 33,339,817 1,983 ~ 207,236,388
i
' Additional value of mobile homes placed in existing parks is included in Residential Alteration Category.
IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY
Chart F. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Elementary School District and Dwelling Unit Type
SCHOOL DWELLING UNiT TYPE TOTAL PERCENT
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/'rH DUP MF MHC AA D.U. TOTAL D.U.
AgnoroHurt 45 5, 301 0 0 0 1~ 81 10.69%
Broadus Wood/Sutherland 12 0i 0, 0 0 0 0i 12 1.58%
Broadus Wood/Jouett 33 0 0 0 00 0 33 4.35%
Brownsville 20 5 0 0 0 01 0 25 3.30%
Crozet 27 6 0 0 0 0 0 33 4.35%
Greet 3 0 0 0 24 01 0 27 3.56%
Hollymead 23 20 0 0 0 0 1 44 5.80%
Meriwether Lewis/Henley 8 0 0 0 0 {3 0 8 1.06%
Meriwether Lewis/Jouett 18 0 0 0 0 0= 0 18 2.37%
Murray 24 2 0 0 0 0, 0 26 3.43%
Red Hill 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1.19%
Cale/Burley 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.26%
CaleNVaiton 74 24 0 0 0 0 0 98 12.93%
Scottsville 1 {3 0 0 0 0 3 0 13 1.72%
Stone Robinson/Burley 72 1 0 0 0 0 0 73 9.63%
Stone Robinson/Walton 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1.06%
Stony PoinfJBurley 4 0 0 0 0 I 0 5 0.66%
Stony Point/Sutherland 1 ~ 0 0 0 96 0 0 115 15.17%
Woodbrook 34 0 20 0 64 0 0 118 15.57%
Yancey 8 0 0 0 {3 2 0 1{3 1.32%
TOTAL 453 63 50 (3 184 6 2 758 100.00%
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources
YEARLY TOTALS, 1998
IV. CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY (continued)
Chart G. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Magisterial District and Dwelling Unit Type
MAGISTERIAL DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL
DISTRICT SF SFA SF/TH DUP MF MHC AA
RIO 14 0 0 0 184 0 0 198
JACK JOUETT 13 0 0 0 0 I 0 1'4
RIVANNA 197 26 50 0 0 0 2 275
SAMUEL MILLER 82 13 0 0 0 0 0 95
SCO'I-FSVILLE 70 13 0 0 0 5 0 88
WHITE HALL 77 11 0 0 0 0 0 88
TOTAL 453 63 50 0 184 6 2 758
Chart H. Breakdown of CO's for Residential Dwelling Units by Comprehensive Plan Area and Dwelling Unit Type
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AREA DWELLING UNIT TYPE TOTAL
SF SFA SF/'rH DUP ' MF MHC AA UNITS
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 1 1 0 0 0 24 0 (3 25
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 2 43 5 30 0 160 {3 {3 238
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 3 2 1 0 0 0 (3 0 3
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 4 41 13 0 0 0 {30 54
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 5 30 11 0 0 0 0 0i 4t
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 6 9 2 0 0 0 (3 01 11
URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 01
CROZET COMMUNITY 33 11 0 0 0 0 01 441
HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY 59 8 20 0 0 0 2 89
PINEY MOUNTAIN COMMUNITY 0 12 0 0 0 {3 01 12,
RIVANNA VILLAGE 59 0 0 0 0 {3 O{ 59
DEVELOPMENT AREA SUBTOTAL 277 63 50 0 184 {3 2= 576
RURAL AREA 1 55 0 0 {3 O 0i 0 55
RURAL AREA 2 33 0 0 0 0 11 0: 34
RURAL AREA 3 53 0 0 0 {3 0~ 0 53
RURAL AREA4 35 0 0 0 (3 5i 0 40
RURAL AREA SUBTOTAL ~176 0 0 0 01 6 0 182
TOTAL 453 63 50 0 184 6 2 758
Prepared by Albemarle County Planning and Community Development, Office of Mapping, Graphics, and Information Resources
Association
~-~- - ~ of Electric
Cooperatives
Virginia, Maryland & Delaware
Publishers of RURAl. LIVING and CURRENT LIVING
Dear Community Leader:
As you know, the Subcommittee Studying Competition in the Electric Utility Industry may be
introducing legislation in the 1999 session of the General Assembly. Virginia's electric
cooperatives have been working actively with this subcommittee to safeguard the very group of
consumers who will need additional protections when competition is introduced into the
Commonwealth--the residential and small-business customers.
Last October we conducted a telephone survey to determine whether our member-owners want
to be able to select their supplier of electricity. Nearly 72 percent of those polled were in favor
of being able to choose their provider. A. nd we agree with our members' views: the right to
choose is a precious American principle.
Yet we also want to make sure that consumers truly will have a choice. As the rules for
competition are written, we must ensure that these same consumers will not be left with higher
electricity costs and reduced service quality.
We are enclosing a "White Paper" entitled "Electricity Restructuring in the Commonwealth of
Virginia," which contains the following information:
* A brief history of electric cooperatives in Virginia;
* Deregulation activities on the national level;
* The ABCs of deregulation;
* Lessons to be learned from other states
* Issues facing Virginia;
* The Consumers' Bill of Rights;
* A glossary of terms.
We hope that this information will prove useful to you as you follow restructuring of the
electricity industry, which will be of serious consequence to every residential and business
consumer in the Commonwealth.
If you wish to have any further information on restructuring issues, you may contact the
following persons with the Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives.
Greg White - Vice President - 804-968-4082
Mark Tubbs - Manager, Governmental Affairs - 804-968-4084
Salud Layton - Coordinator, Governmental Affairs - 804-968-4088
We thank you for your time and interest in this very important issue.
The Virginia, Maryland and Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives
P.O. Box 2340, Glen Allen, VA 23058 * 4201 Dominion Blvd., Glen Allen, VA 23060
(804) 346-3344 · FAX: (804) 346-3448
WHITE PAPER
Electricity RestrUcturing
in the Commonwealth of Virginia
Prepared by:
The Virginia, Maryland & Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II.
III.
IV.
Vo
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
Executive Summary ........................................................... 1
A Unique Perspective .......................................................... 2
Deregulation - A National Perspective ...................................... 3
The ABCs of Deregulation ................................................... 5
Lessons to be Learned from Other States ................................... 7
Lessons to Be Learned from the Deregulation of Other Industries ..... 10
Issues Facing Virginia ........................................................ l l
Where to Go and How to Proceed .......................................... 15
Glossary of Terms ............................................................ 18
I. Executive Summary,:
The Commonwealth of Virginia, like many states in the nation, is currently laying the
foundation to introduce electricity deregulation to all consumers. Legislation already
approved during the 1998 legislative session calls for statewide consumer choice to
become effective in 2004 with pilot programs slated to begin in early 2000. Because of
this long lead time, consumers may not have a sense of urgency regarding this issue nor
recognize, until after the turn of the century, the importance of deregulation decisions
made today by' the General Assembly. However, those most involved in sorting through
deregulation within Virginia are well aware that some of the most important decisions that
will affect the purses and wallets of all customers will be made over the next few years.
The issues surrounding deregulation are complex and sometimes contentious. Industry
jargon can hamper clear communications to those butside the inner circle. Even minute
differences in words can signal a swing of millions of dollars from one vested interest to
another. Cost reductions in one area can be offset by cost increases in another. And,
theoretical savings rarely or never exactly translate into actual savings.
A majority of Virginians agree that in the long run, deregulation will reduce total electric
costs and will benefit all involved - investor-owned utilities, electric cooperatives, large
industrial customers, the state economy, small businesses and residential customers.
However, given Virginia's relatively low electric rates (7.8 cents per kilowatt-hour versus
the national average of 8.4 cents per kwh), there is no need to move forward quickly.
Over the short term, it will be difficult to ensure that all parties benefit equally as one of
our nation's most regulated industries revamps itself to operate under an entirely new set
of rules. The key to successful deregulation in Virginia will center upon how best to move
forward and how quickly to move forward. Only through thoughtful and cautious actions
can we be assured that all electric consumer groups are treated fairly when it comes to the
short term costs and benefits involved in this rigorous process.
In addition, it will be incumbent upon the industry and the legislature to ensure that
consumer expectations of cost savings after deregulation are realistic. This is particularly
true among residential and small business customers. Originally, the theoretical cost saving
projections touted around the nation were on the order of 10 percent to 30 percent, with
some projections as high as a 40 percent cost savings. However, states compelled to
pursue deregulation first because they were beset by some of the nation's highest
regulated electricity rates, have found that the reality is that savings for residential
customers end up being in the 5-10 percent range.
2
Furthermore, these savings relate solely to the cost of generating electric power, rather
than the total electricity bill. (In Virginia, generation comprises approximately 60 percent
of the average residential customer's monthly electric bill.)~ Over the short term, it's just
as likely that offsetting cost increases in the other components of the consumer's bill could
cause the average residential monthly bill to increase slightly for much of the next five to
ten year period. Educating residential consumers and creating expectations that are more
in line with the long term nature of deregulation will be critical in preventing public
outcries once Virginia implements full-scale residential deregulation on Jan. 1, 2004.
II. A Unique Perspective:
By their nature, electric cooperatives are the most likely advocates to protect the interests
of all groups, particularly residential customers. Investor-owned utilities are corporations
that must answer to their stockholders. As such, they must walk a fine line between
protecting their profits and protecting their customers. Likewise, large industrial
customers operate in highly competitive businesses and have a near-fiduciary responsibility
to pursue significant energy cost savings that can spell increased profits for their
stockholders. As deregulation moves forward in Virginia, it will be necessary to create an
environment where these organizations can adequately serve their stockholder interests,
but not at the expense of Virginia's millions of small business and residential consumers.
Electric cooperatives, on the other hand, are not-for-profit organizations that are
consumer-owned. Only members - customers of the co-op - can be owners. And
cooperatives return to their members any money lef~ over after all the system's expenses
are paid. Co-ops face no quandary over whose interests to serve since shareholders and
customers are one and the same.
Ironically, co-ops were originally created to serve the same populations most at-risk in the
implementation of electfic restructuring: homes and businesses that are low volume users,
have little flexibility to alter their consumption patterns and offer the least potential to
increase stockholder weakh.
Prior to 1935, barely 10 percent of rural Americans had electricity in their homes. It was
not economical for existing investor-owned electric companies to serve these areas
because low population density spelled high costs and little revenue opportunity. With the
formation of the Rural Electrification Administration (REA, which is now called the Rural
Utilities Service or RUS) in 1935, financing and technical expertise were made available to
allow farmers and small town residents to band together to form electric cooperatives.
~ In 1997, the average cooperative consumer's monthly bill mounted to $81.93 for 1,000 kwh.
3
In June 1936, Virginia's first cooperative, the Shenandoah Valley Electric Cooperative,
was chartered. And in August 1936, the first REA-financed line in Virginia was
established to serve 73 member-consumers around Carmel Church (near the present-day
site of King's Dominion). By 1952, nearly 90 percent of the state's farms and small towns
were electrified, in large measure because of electric co-ops.
Today, Virginia's 13 electric cooperatives provide reliable, affordable electricity to over
360,000 homes and businesses in 64 of the Commonwealth's 95 counties. Approximately
98 percent of the 911,000 Virginians served by cooperatives are residential and small
business customers.
Nationwide, electric cooperatives are the industry's most powerful, strongest and fastest
growing segment. Nearly 1,000 electric cooperatives comprise America's largest electric
utility network. Together these co-ops, with more than $70 billion in assets, serve more
than 30 million customers - nearly 11 percent of the nation's population - in 46 states.
Electric cooperatives own and maintain nearly half of the electric distribution lines in the
United States and operate 13.2 million meters across approximately three-quarters of the
nation's land mass. In fact, electric cooperatives have been growing at an average of 6
percent per annum - faster than any other form of electric utility.
III. Deregulation - A National Perspective:
Nothing is more American than the opportunity to choose. And, nothing speaks more
strongly of free market capitalism than the concept that competition in an unregulated
market for electricity will result in market-driven pricing that will ultimately benefit all
electricity consumers.
The electric utility industry - for sound reasons involving safety, environmental
stewardship, reliability and price protection for consumers - has been a heavily regulated
monopoly for all its 100-year history. Electric utilities have operated under close
regulatory scrutiny in protected franchise territories. The franchises for transmission and
local delivery of electricity will continue even after deregulation and restructuring. What
consumers will be able to choose is which company generates their electricity.
In the electric utility industry, there is a national movement to move towards competition,
in much the same manner as the nation deregulated trucking, telephone service, interstate
banking/financial services, telecommunications/cable television and the airline industry.
The stage for competition in the electric utility industry was set during the energy crisis in
the late seventies, with the passage of Federal laws designed to promote more efficient use
of electricity through cogeneration, and to reduce our nation's dependence on foreign oil
4
by stimulating the construction of alternative generation sources such as solar, wind,
biomass and indigenous fuels.2
But it was not until the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992, that major barfers to
competition began to fall. A major provision of the EPAct gave the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) the authority to order utilities to provide access to their
transmission lines. This in turn created opportunities for competition at the wholesale
level. And in 1996, FERC Orders 888 and 889 set out the rules for virtually unrestricted
wholesale wheeling. 3
On the plus side, the EPAct and the FERC orders have given wholesale customers that are
dependent on other utilities for transmission, access to new competitively-priced sources
of power. 'This is especially beneficial to electric cooperatives who are traditionally
dependent on wholesale power sources, and ultimately will benefit all classes of
consumers. However, opening the door at the wholesale level has ushered in calls from
large users of electricity and others for government to take swift action to promote more
competition and to allow retail customers to choose their power supplier.
These large industrial users, independent power producers, power marketers and brokers,
and even some investor-owned utilities are carrying on an aggressive campaign at the state
and federal level to secure retail-wheeling 4 rights. They argue that the experience with
competition in the gas, telecommunications, airline, railroad and trucking industries holds
important lessons for electricity. And they say that competition in these other industries
has resulted in lower prices, innovation, expanded output and improved quality.
Further, state governments have felt compelled to pursue residential deregulation under
pressure - either real or perceived - from the federal government. It is widely believed
that states must act on deregulation in order to avoid a federally mandated nationwide
deregulation plan that would be unlikely to fit the needs of individual states.
Given this environment, it is easy to see why every state but one - South Dakota - has
either enacted restructuring legislation or has a comprehensive regulatory order issued or a
commission/legislative investigation ongoing. Several states - generally those with some
of the nation's highest electric rates under a regulated utility environment - have already
2 The passage of the National Energy Act in 1978 created the Public Utilities Regulatory Policies Act
(PURl>A) and the Natural Gas Policy Act. PURPA created a class of non-utility generators (NUGs) which
include cogeneration facilities and small power producers.
3 Previously a regulated utility's ownership of transmission lines placed a stranglehold on moving power
from an electric generation facility to that owned by another utility. FERC Order 888 further diminished
the importance of transmission ownership by requiring all utilities to file tariffs (schedules of rates and
fees) demonstrating that all wholesale users of their transmission facilities are charged rates comparable to
the owner of that transmission facility.
4 "Wheeling" refers to the use of the transmission facilities of one system to transmit power produced by
another system.
5
begun implementing retail deregulation, most notably California, Illinois, Massachusetts
and New York. Meanwhile, others are in the midst of pilot programs that will precede
statewide implementation: New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island.
So, the march toward deregulation has begun. In the long-term, deregulation can indeed
benefit business'and residential customers alike. However, there are a number of lessons to
be learned from the deregulation of other industries, as well as new experiences in those
states implementing electric utility deregulation. These lessons, should be strongly
considered as Virginia lawmakers and opinion leaders formulate an action plan to achieve
retail choice.
IV. The ABCs of Deregulation:
To understand the complexities encountered sorting through deregulation, it is helpful to
start with the fundamental components - generation, transmission and distribution - of
how electricity gets to our homes and businesses.
Electricity is generated by power plants that use fuel (nuclear, coal-fired, natural gas, etc.)
to turn turbine engines which create electricity. Electricity leaves the power plant via
transmission wires. Akin to our nation's interstate highway system, transmission lines
move power in bulk across large geographic distances to a local destination. Voltage is
reduced at substations and, eventually, electricity arrives at your home or business via
distribution wires.
In a regulated utility environment, companies were granted a monopoly in a .franchised
geographic area. Under this monopoly, electric generation, transmission and distribution
were vertically integrated - bundled together and delivered by a single utility. State
regulatory agencies, such as Virginia's State Corporation Commission, worked with
utilities to set rates based upon cost assumptions for generation, capital used or needed to
create power plants, fuel costs and many other factors. Because these rates are based upon
costs rather than value, the cost of power differs substantially from state to state.
In general, electric cooperatives generate a portion of the power distributed to their
member-owners, and purchase the remainder of their members' needs from investor-
owned utilities (IOUs) and non-utility generators (NUGs). Ten of Virginia's electric
cooperatives are member-owners of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, headquartered in
Glen Allen, Va. Old Dominion is a generation cooperative that provides wholesale power
to 12 local electric cooperatives, 10 in Virginia and one each in Maryland and Delaware.
Old Dominion owns 11.6 percent of the North Anna Nuclear Power Station and 50
percent of the Clover Power Station, one of the most sophisticated coal-fired plants in
Virginia. Through ownership of these electric generation facilities, Old Dominion is able to
provide approximately 55 percent of all the electricity needed by its member cooperatives.
6
The balance is purchased at wholesale rates from other utilities, including Virginia Power
and American Electric Power (AEP) - Virginia. The Virginia cooperatives then distribute
this electricity to their member-owners via their local distribution systems.
Under deregulation, these components will become.unbundled. Theoretically, consumers
will have the opportunity to purchase generated power from a number of different
suppliers competing for their business primarily on the basis of price. The generated power
will flow into a grid or "power exchange" from which the purchased electricity will then
flow through transmission lines, likely owned by another company. Eventually, the
electricity will arrive at the home or business via the utility company currently serving the
customer
It is important to note that under deregulation, the only component of the provision of
electricity that consumers will be able to select will be the company that generates the
electricity. The companies currently serving the consumer will still provide transmission
and distribution. Further, although consumers will likely still receive a single bill from the
company that distributes power to their home or business, the charges will be separated or
"unbundled" for the following components:
· Power generation (the company selected by the consumer as the provider of choice),
· Power transmission (for the use of the high voltage transmission lines from the
generation source to the distribution company), and
· Power distribution (for the maintenance of utility lines and delivery to the consumer's
home or business).
· In addition, a new charge dubbed "competitive transition charges," or "CTC" may be
added. The CTC will allow utilities to recover stranded costs and costs associated with
other public purpose programs.5
The power generation charge will likely decline as a result of market-driven pricing -
rather than the current regulated, cost-driven pricing. However, anticipated savings may
initially be completely offset by other costs of transitioning to competition, such as the
creation of an Independent System Operator* and the Competitive Transition Charge.
Restructuring may also actually raise some costs which as regulated industry, electric
5 In a regulated environment, utilities were permitted to recover in their rates, the costs of constructing
generation facilities. However, in a deregulated environment, generation will be subject to competitive
pressures, and the utility may no longer be able to recover its costs through rates, thus "stranding" these
costs.
6 h is envisioned that an Independent System Operator (ISO) will be created to manage access to
transmission facilities. However, it will cost a substantial amount of money to create an ISO, which may
in turn offset consumer savings.
7
utilities have heretofore not had to consider.7 The most important issue though, is that
these costs will be shared fairly among all classes of consumers.
V. Lessons to be Learned from Other States:
Some Positive Aspects:
As mentioned previously, a number of states are already in the throes of deregulation,
most notably California, New Hampshire, New York, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.
Virginia's road map to deregulation can gain much from the experiences, both positive and
negative, encountered in these states.
Guaranteed Generation Price Reductions: On the positive side, state legislatures and
state regulatory bodies have been effective in guaranteeing savings for residential
customers through a number of different approaches. For instance,
In Pennsylvania, residential customers can make use of "shopping credits" that
artificially reduce short-term power generation costs. As a result, most utility-
specific restructuring plans approved by the Pennsylvania Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) call for an 8 to 12 percent initial reduction in the generating
rate. (However, in some of these plans, the rate will decline to six percent in the
year 2000.)
· In California, the state legislature passed a bill that mandates a 10 percent rate
reduction through March 31, 2002.
· And in New York, Commonwealth Edison will reduce rates by 3.3 percent in year
one and increase the discount to 10 percent by year five. Another of the state's
utilities, Niagara Mohawk Power, has agreed to reduce rates by 3.2 percent for
residential and small customers.
Increased Construction of Generating Capacity: Another positive aspect of
deregulation has been the flurry of activity to construct new generating capacity,
which has been unleashed by the opportunity for market-driven returns on power
generation. As a result, new generating capacity will help push prices down, remove
out-dated and less environmentally friendly plants from the market, and create a more
market-driven pricing structure for all electricity consumers.
· Stranded Cost Recover:8 Every state that is moving forward with electric
restructuring has sought solutions to the stranded cost dilemma faced by regulated
7 A recent Consumers Union and Consumers Federation of America joint study pointed out that
"marketing to attract customers also imposes new costs that were unknown to monopoly providers." In
particular, "serving residential customers requires extensive marketing, new billing and collection
processes, the risk of uncollectable debt, and the need for new customers service personnel."
s Stranded costs are one of the most contentious issues surrounding deregulation and have been at the core
of several legal baffles fought in a number of other states, particularly in Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and
8
utilities. (See Footnote No. 8 for a discussion of stranded costs.) In some states,
utilities have been required to sell off part or all of their generating facilities (often at
attractive prices) to mitigate the potential stranded costs.9 In other cases, state PUCs
have allowed utilities to float bond issues that will provide necessary, capital to at least
ao
partially offset the impact of stranded costs upon electricity consumers.
New Forms of Ae~re~ation Created: One way to potentially reduce the price of
electricity in a deregulated environment is to create more purchasing power. Large
industrial users already have such clout and are the most likely class of electricity
consumer to immediately benefit from deregulation. However, throughout the country,
new forms of aggregation have been structured, such as associations between
apartment and commercial building owners and hotels to pool their purchasing power.
In fact, in California, New Hampshire and New York City, new utilities have been
formed in response to competition, to aggregate residential loads - and these new
utilities were formed as electric cooperatives. ~
Some Potential Problems
· Ensuring Residential Choice: One of the possible mirages of deregulation is the
assumption that residential customers will be able to choose a power supplier from
among a bevy of potential providers. In truth, residential customers are the most
difficult to economically serve for any energy services provider (ESP). As with any
business, large volume customers offer the most profit potential for a variety of
reasons. In states that have already undertaken full-scale retail competition or that are
in pilot program stages, a number of alarming occurrences have been observed that
actually suggest there may be few choices for residential consumers when deregulation
is put into practice.
· In the New Hampshire retail choice pilot, there are only handful of ESPs left
versus 32 at the beginning;
New Hampshire. In these cases, litigation has effectively stalled the deregulation process until the court
cases can be settled.
9 A recent book by Richard Hilt, president of Bright Line Energy Inc., anticipates that investor-owned
utilities will sell roughly 75 percent of their generating assets, most of which will purchased by
independent power producers or IPPs at sale prices that are approximately 40 percent above book value.
Further, the Utility Data Institute reported in late August that more than 10 percent of the nation's electric
generating capacity has either been sold or offered for sale over the past 18 months.
to In California, several major utilities were permitted to issue $7 billion in bonds sold by a special state-
authorized trust to finance a 10 percent rate cut and a transition period to permit the utilities to be
compensated for their stranded costs.
n For instance, in California, a number of agricultural processors and have banned together to form a new
electric cooperative, and in New Hampshire, a Consamers Utility Cooperative has been formed to
aggregate residential and small business electric consumers.
9
In California, ESPs have declined from 200 at the program start to just 24, with
only a handful serving residential and most of those selling only higher-priced
"green" power. Other ESPs are essentially selling power at the same price that
customers could get from their incumbent utility or at savings that amount to only
30 cents per month off the average bill. More recently, Enron pulled out of the
California residential market after spending $10 million on advertising and
marketing;
· In Massachusetts, Enron has pulled out of the residential market leaving only one
alternative power supplier in the state; and
· In Pennsylvania, where 70 ESPs have been enrolled, there are no ESPs signed-up
to serve customers in the service territories of the Pennsylvania rural co-ops.
Disappointing Residential Savings: On the whole, residential savings are amounting
to less than five percent or about $30 per year for the typical residential customer.
Most notably, these savings levels are being recorded in states that started with some
of the nation's highest regulated utility rates where even the deregulated "power cost"
rates are higher than Virginia's current rates.
Price Volatili~: To understand how price volatility is part of a market-driven pricing
structure, one need only look to the stock exchanges. Basic economic theory and real
life examples clearly indicate that in an unregulated market, prices rise when demand
outstrips supply. Likewise, prices decline when supply exceeds demand. Under a
deregulated or "retail wheeling," environment, residential customers could be exposed
to the dramatic swings of the wholesale power market, which in turn, could be
reflected in their monthly power bill.
This past summer there were several examples of sharp demand peaks spurred by
extremely hot summer weather and defaults by certain power providers that further
exacerbated the situation. As a result of these events, there was unprecedented price
volatility which was particularly alarming for consumers. ~2Although FERC characterized
these price spikes as unusual events and/or the result of an immature market, the bottom
line is that electric consumers are now exposed to events from which regulation previously
protected them.
Perhaps the most significant statement coming out of the Congressional investigation
concerning these price spikes was spoken by Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee Chairman Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska: "These price spikes are neither a green
~2 For example, in the Midwest prices surged to $7,500 a megawatt hour. And, on July 8 and 9, 1998,
prices reached $5,000 per mwh in Southern California. To put this in perspective, ff these rates continued
for a week, the average family would have seen a $1,000 utility bill for the month.
10
light nor a red light on the road to competition. They are a yellow hght. They tell us to
proceed with caution. Reliable and reasonably priced electricity is too important to
consumers, businesses, the economy and our international competitiveness to disrupt."
Additional Costs Created by Competition: New additional costs will be created by
competition for such functions as systems management, new facilities, transaction
costs, marketing costs, new billing and collection processes etc. ~3
New Players W~II Need Regulation: Through a recent marketing pyramid scheme in
California, we have learned that a rigorous process must be established by the state
regulatory body to ensure that any power marketers operating within the marketplace
have sufficient resources and access to power to make good on their promises to
deliver electricity to consumers. In addition, strong penalties need to be established for
deceptive practices, such as "slamming" where a customer's power or service provider
is switched without their consent.
VI.
Lessons to B,e Learned from the Deregulation
of Other Industries:
Experience in other deregulated industries (cable, telecommunications and airlines)
indicate that following deregulation, most consumer classes have ended up with less
choice then was originally intended. This lack of choice is primarily the result of industry
consolidation, particularly increased consolidation among the top 10 companies in each
industry. As a result of mergers and acquisitions, these industries have essentially moved
from being regulated monopolies to deregulated oligopolies.
Cable Television: In the cable television industrY, 98 percent of all customers are still
served by a monopoly cable distribution company (87 percent when all altemative
technologies - satellite, Direct Digital Cable, etc. are considered). As a result, a few
firms control well over half the market. They are highly regionalized so there is little
threat that a large national finn will invade a competitor's territory. And, since the
passage of the Telecom Act, which deregulated cable, the price of cable has increased
at about 8 percent per year - about four times the rate of inflation:
Local Telephone Service: In local telephone markets, pre-deregulation incumbents
(e.g., Baby Bells) have a 99 percent share and essentially all of the residential
ratepayers. More recently, the wave of mergers and acquisitions among local 'phone
t3 For instance, daily power purchasing transactions will increase from 200 a day to one million a day
requiring complex systems to execute and track. Managing these transactions, scheduling power delivery
from multiple generators and then delivering electricity to multiple locations is a difficult and costly task.
After deregulation was put into place in California, the state's three biggest utilities reported that they
planned to spend more than $1 billion over five years to implement retail wheeling.
11
service providers has increased the concentration of business in the local telephone
industry by more than 350 percent since 1984. The concentration of business among
the top four competitors has increased 136 percent. And, in the decade after
divestiture, basic local rates increased 10 percent while basic business rates declined by
15 percent in real terms. Since passage of the Telecom Act, residential basic rates have
been flat in real terms while business rates are down.
Airline Deregulation: Airline deregulation has resulted in the growth of the "hub"
approach to airline routing. For those markets that are not a hub, this has led to
reduced service availability and higher costs for customers flying to those markets.
While flights from hub airports have become less expensive in most cases, passengers
who must depart from non-hub locations have seen a significant increase in rates and
decrease hub of availability. And, a number of locations have seen their airline service
completely disappear.
Ironically, when compared with the electric industry, airline deregulation has
resulted in higher fares for businesses. Business travelers have less control over demand
(when and where they fly), are more subject to fare restrictions than leisure travelers
(consumers), and pay much higher fares because they can't take advantage of special
fares, Saturday night stay, etc. Therefore, these higher business fares help subsidize the
Iow rates for leisure travelers.
In order to ensure customer choice through the deregulation of the electric utility industry,
it will be imperative to maintain as many suppliers of power as is financially
feasible given the industry's economies of scale. Today, the top 10 generators of
electricity already control 67percent of the market. Logically, that percentage will only
increase as utility companies divest their generating capacitY to a few market
consolidators. If the electric utility industry follows the examples of cable, local phone
service and airline deregulation, then it is very likely that consumers, especially residential
customers, will end up with relatively few choices.
Already, this trend has become apparent in those states pursuing full-scale retail
deregulation. However, the current trend has more to do with a lack of profitability from
serving residential customers. If large industrial customers and large aggregators remove
significant volume from the systems that serve primarily residential and small business
customers, then it is very likely that these small volume customers could face a situation
where their electricity costs could increase substantially. ~
VII. Issues Facing Virginia
In 1996, the General Assembly established a joint legislative committee to study
restructuring and potential changes in the electric utility industry. This subcommittee has
been continued through the 1997 and 1998 sessions. In the 1998 session of the General
Assembly, two major pieces of restructuring legislation were introduced - one, which
12
passed (House Bill 1172), calls for the deregulation of generation facilities by 2002, with
the transition to retail competition to commence in 2002, with full competition to begin on
Jan. 1, 2004. The other (Senate Bill 688), which sets forth a comprehensive framework for
restructuring the industry, was held over to the 1999 session. The latter piece of
legislation has served as an outline for the joint subcommittee as it continued its
deliberations through 1998. It is anticipated that some form, and quite likely multiple
versions of restructuring legislation will be introduced in the 1999 session of the General
Assembly.
The joint subcommittee has formed four task forces to study electric industry
restructuring: (1) Stranded Costs and Related Issues; (2) Structure and Transition; (3)
Consumer, Environment and Education; and (4) Taxation Issues. Below are outlined the
myriad issues these groups are studying, and the view of Virginia's electric cooperatives
on the potential impact on consumers in the Commonwealth.
Stranded Costs: Essentially all of the parties involved in the task force's discussion
propose allowing recovery of potential losses that may arise from the generation-related
fixed costs that electric utilities incurred in fulfilling their obligations to provide reliable
service to their customers. At issue, are:
(1) What elements should be included in the definition of stranded costs?
(devaluation of generation assets, wholesale power contracts)
(2) Should the costs oftransitioning to competition be collected from ratepayers?
(3) What entity Should determine stranded costs?
(4) How should stranded costs be collected?
(5) When should the collection of stranded costs begin and end?
Virginia's electric cooperatives are structured and operated differently than investor-
owned utilities and other for-profit businesses. Cooperatives are owned and operated for
the benefit of their member-consumers. There are no stockholders from whom stranded
costs and transition expenses may be recovered. In order to survive in a competitive
marketplace, electric cooperatives may need to begin at a different starting block, and
begin to recover their stranded costs now, before competition begins. Accordingly, the
cooperatives are proposing a separate provision in the Code of Virginia that will allow the
recovery of Old Dominion's stranded costs through its distribution cooperative
members. ~4
14 Old Dominion is one-half owner of the $1.2 billion Clover Power Station, and owns 11.6 percent of the
$2.5 billion North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Clover, which was completed in 1996, has the most
sophisticated environmental controls of any of the coal-fired power plants in Virginia. However, Old
Dominion incurred significant debt to construct the most efficient and environmentally friendly
generation, which will put Old Dominion and its members at a significant disadvantage when competing
for customers in a deregulated environment. Once this debt, or "stranded cost" is brought down, Old
Dominion will be able sell wholesale energy at market prices to its members, who, in mm, can offer
competitive rates to their retail consumers.
13
Structure and Transition: Key issues that are being discussed by this Task Force include
(1) which services should be made competitive;~ (2) when should retail competition
begin; ~6 (3) should retail competition be phased in; (4) which entity should provide default
and supplier-of-last resort, services, and who should designate this supplier; (5) should
incumbent generation providers be required to divest or separate generation from
distribution in order to mitigate potential market power; and (6) how should the General
Assembly and the State Corporation Commission (SCC) address potential market power
arising from transmission constraints.
Virginia's electric cooperatives believe only the generation segment of the delivery of
electricity should be made competitive. The distribution of electricity in a competitive
market should continue to be conducted as it is now, with the current local utilities
retaining the obligation to provide distribution service in certified service territories. As for
billing and metering functions, the cooperatives believe that they should be provided by
the entity providing distribution service. Along with the duty to serve everyone in its
certified distribution territory, should come the right to bill for that service. Further,
control of metering is an essential aspect of operating a distribution system.
Virginia's electric cooperatives also believe that competition should begin at the same time
for ali customer classes. Ninety-eight percent of the Cooperatives' consumers are
residential and small business owners. The Cooperatives firmly maintain that no class of
customers should be left behind when competition commences. Residential customers
must have an equal opportunity to make choices about their electric service and to receive
the benefits of competition.
The "supplier of last resort" is the electricity provider for customers who otherwise are
unable to obtain service because of payment problems, or potentially because they live in a
location that may be unprofitable to serve. The Cooperatives believe that the incumbent
distribution service provider should serve as the supplier of last resort. Cooperatives were
formed 60 years ago to serve those rural and hard to reach areas that the investor-owned
utilities found unprofitable to serve. We will proudly continue to serve these areas in a
competitive environment.
A "default" provider is one that may be assigned to customers who do not make a choice
of generation suppliers. No customer should be assigned to a different utility if they fail to
make a choice of a provider. The Cooperatives believe that some customers will simply
~5 The greater majority of Task Force participants believe that generation should be made competitive, and
that transmission and distribution should remain regulated services.
~6 Some participants support the timetable established by I-lB 1172 which begins the transition in 2002,
with full retail choice to commence in 2004. Others, including the SCC believe this schedule should be
subject to modifications, with no predetermined schedule for the deregulation of generation assets. Others,
in particular, the large industrial consumers, call for retail choice by 2001.
14
refuse to make a choice. Some customers don't want to be bothered.~7 While for others,
"no choice" is a signal of satisfaction with their current provider. '~,1o choice" should be a
legitimate, viable option.
Virginia's electric cooperatives also have significant concerns about the potential "market
power," that can occur if one or more large, vertically integrated utilities own and operate
the transmission system and the majority of generation sources within their control area.is
This will severely limit the ability to import capacity from competing suppliers, which in
turn will restrict the availability of generation choices to the retail consumer. The fewer
choices available, the greater the ability to charge higher rates, in particular to the smaller
customer who will not have the economic clout to bargain for the best price. The
Cooperatives recommend that where the market is constrained, the price of generation
should be limited to cost of service rates. However, if it is not possible to alleviate market
power constraints, the Cooperatives favor the SCC requiring divestiture of generation
facilities.
Consumer, Environment and Education: This task force addressed topics ranging from
public benefits for low-income households, aggregation of consumers and consumer
education and protection to energy efficiency, environmental protection and electric utility
worker protection.
The Cooperatives, as member-owned organizations are the voice of the consumer. The
Cooperatives have been aggregators for customers in rural areas and emerging suburbs for
over 60 years, and electric cooperatives will be around to aggregate those residential and
small business consumers deemed unprofitable by others. The Cooperatives are in favor of
entities, meeting certain standards and licensing requirements, aggregating residential and
small business consumers. Indeed, aggregation may be the only hope residential consumers
will have of benefiting from competition.
However, the Cooperatives are in total disagreement that cities and counties should be
permitted to aggregate their residential load on an "opt-out" basis. ~ Cooperatives and
municipalities should be permitted to continue to act as aggregators for their members and
~7 Concerning residential choice of electricity supplier, Alfred Kalm, the so-called "father of
deregulation," recently told a symposium, "why should I want to do that? My life expectancy is just not
long enough. I don't want to be bothered."
ts To explain further, the Virginia Power transmission system has less than 4,000 mw of capacity to
import power into the system. Virginia Power owns or controls contractually over 16,000 mw of
generation capacity within this system. If generation supply is completely deregulated, anytime the load
within Virginia Power's system is above 4,000 mw, which is all the time, they are in a position to charge
whatever they choose for power.
~9 "Opt-out" plans are also referred to as "community choice" plans. Under community choice, a locality's
residents would be included in the locality's electricity customer aggregation unless residents and
businesses individually choose to opt out in favor of shopping for their own generation supplier. Virginia's
counties and municipalities favor opt-out aggregation.
15
citizens who choose not to switch suppliers. The opt-out proposal will allow the localities
to take over current customers of existing utilities by simply declaring themselves
aggregators. This is tantamount to state-supported slamming.
Tax Issues: Under current law, the investor-owned electric utilities and the. electric
cooperatives pay a variety of taxes to the Commonwealth and localities. The taxes paid by
utilities are in turn "recaptured" from consumers through the utility's regulated rates.
Taxes levied by the Commonwealth include the gross receipts tax and a special regulatory
revenue tax, which is used to help fund the State Corporation Commission. Localities also
receive a large amount of revenue from utilities through local gross receipts taxes,
consumer utility taxes and property taxes.
A restructured electric utility environment will require changes to the current tax scheme.
Under current law, out-of-state electricity providers are not subject to the gross receipts
tax - consequently, this would give them an unfair competitive advantage. Further, there
are concerns that the value of generating assets may decline in a competitive environment,
which in turn, would decrease the amount of property taxes collected by localities.
The task force is looking at tax structures that will be revenue neutral (i.e. generate the
same amount of revenue as the gross receipts tax) and that will neither unfairly benefit nor
disadvantage in-state utilities.
VIII. Where to Go and How to Proceed
We urge all parties involved in moving deregulation forward in the Commonwealth of
Virginia to thoughtfully consider any changes with the public's best interest in mind. Our
region already enjoys competitive power prices that are below the national average. We do
not need to take any sudden or drastic actions at this time, particularly in light of the
difficulties being encountered in other states, and in light of the below-average rates and
high reliability enjoyed by all Virginia consumers of electricity. Our goal must be to assure
that retail competition does not have a major downside for thousands of residential
customers and small businesses.
To help guide the forward progress of retail deregulation in Virginia, the Virginia,
Maryland & Delaware Association of Electric Cooperatives offer the following principles:
All consumers should have access to safe, reliable electric service at a
reasonable cost The mission, regardless of the business environment, should always
be to deliver safe, reliable and reasonably priced power to all of our consumers. When
changes are made at the retail level, then those changes should be done in a way that
provides a smooth transition, protecting all stakeholders.
2.
7.
16
All classes of consumers should be treated equally, not just those with special
interests and influenc~ In a retail deregulation environment, large-volume customers
could easily shop the market and switch suppliers to obtain the lowest rate, but
households and small businesses would not necessarily enjoy the same leverage.
Residential consumers served by relatively small electric utilities such as electric
cooperatives are particularly vulnerable to rate increases which could occur if large-
volume loads leave the system without providing a proper transition. Retail
competition should not favor large consumers of electricity to the exclusion of small
business, residential and farm consumers.
Allowances must be made to recover stranded costs over a reasonable period of
t/m~ If retail competition is mandated, larger commercial and industrial loads in less-
densely-populated areas could be "cherry-picked" from the local distribution systems.
If electric cooperative systems begin to lose these loads to other electric service
providers, the effect on the remaining small commercial and residential customers, the
owners of the system, could be devastating, unless that investment is recouped. It
would be a serious inequity if a customer is permitted to change its service provider
without compensating the prior provider for the costs it was required under a
regulated environment to incur to service the long-term needs of that customer.
All energy suppliers should be subject to the same certification, environmental and
financial standards. Retail wheeling will probably result in the unbundling of
generation, transmission and distribution sales, making demand side initiatives and
integrated resource planning almost impossible. Additionally, the "lowest cost" would
drive market demand, thus encouraging sales from older, dirtier plants. Therefore, the
emissions from power plants should be addressed in any restructuring legislation.
Safety and reliability must be protected. Electricity is a necessity that impacts every
sector of the economy. Affordable and reliable electricity is essential to maintaining a
high quality of life. It is essential that reliability is not compromised in a restructred
industry.
Exclusive delivery service areas should be maintained to avoid expensive
duplication of facilities and equipment. Multiple sets of wires and poles owned by
different entities competing to serve the same customers would result in significant
economic inefficiencies, create the potential for environmental hazards and diminish
the attractiveness of a community. Customers should not. be permitted to "bypass"
distribution systents by_building .thek own. private, u.nregu..!ated facilities to .hook up
directly with the transmissiog grid or. another utility's distribution system.
States should have the primary role in restructuring the electric industry. States
should be allowed to proceed at their own pace. The electric cooperatives are opposed
to a federally mandated one-size, one-date fits all approach to electric industry
restructuring. Currently, nearly every state in the nation is examining the issue of retail
17
competition and industry restructuring through their legislatures or state public utility
commission. State legislatures and regulators are much better positioned to analyze
their particular utility situations and formulate plans that deal with local differences in
a studied, real world situation. The cooperatives support an approach that allows for
the states to be the "experimental laboratories" for industry restructuring initiatives.
8.
Customers who opt not to choose a new supplier should be allowed to stay with
their existing power provider. When residential customers are provided the option to
select a new power provider and choose not to exercise their option, a choice should
not be forced upon them. Rather than pursuing a default or lottery process, Virginians
should be allowed the opportunity to continue to do business with their existing utility.
Because indeed, in choosing not to switch suppliers, consumers would affirmatively be
choosing to remain with their current supplier. Not choosing is a choice.
Any changes must be thoughtfully considered and be in the public interest. Many
issues must be resolved before competition is allowed at the retail level - issues such as:
options available for industry deregulation; deregulation's impact on small business or
residential consumers; a utility's obligation to serve its consumers; stranded investment
caused by the departure of industrial consumer members; territorial integrity; and whether
changes need to be made so that electric utilities may be able to fulfill the ultimate goal of
providing safe, reliable and reasonably priced power to our consumers in a deregulated
world.
As we move forward into retail competition, all necessary changes should be done in a
way that provides a smooth transition, protecting the interest of all stakeholders.
18
IX. GLOSSARY of TERMS
Access Charge: A fee imposed on a seller to gain access to a utility's transmission or
distribution lines necessary to deliver power to a point of exchange or use.
Ancillary Services: Services provided by a utility to a provider of generation which
maintains the quality, safety, reliability, accounting and planning necessary to move
generation from one point to another.
Avoided Cost: The forecasted cost that the utility would have otherwise incurred in
providing generation services to its customers. Utilities pay this price to cogenerators in
many states.
Base Load: The nearly steady level of demand on a utility system; the minimum
continuous load or demand in a power system over a given period of time.
Base Load Plant: A plant which is normally operated to take all or part of the minimum
continuous load of an electric system and which consequently produces electricity at a
constant rate.
Capacity: The power output rating of a generator or electric system, typically reported in
megawatts.
Ce~fied Service Territory: The concept embodied in the statutes of most states under
which a utility is granted the right to be the exclusive provider of electric service in a given
geographic area in return for the utility's obligation to serve all end-use customers with
reliable service at fair and regulated prices.
Capital Intensive: Requiring proportionally greater investment in facilities and access to
credit in order to produce and deliver service.
Cogeneration: Joint production of electricity and useful heat from a common source.
Competitive Transition Charge (CTC):
utilities to recover stranded costs and
programs.
A fee assessed on the electric bill to allow
costs associated with other public purpose
Cost-Based Pricing: Electric service prices determined by adding an allowed return on
investment to the costs associated with serving an individual customer (or the average cost
of serving a group of similar customers).
Cost of Service: The total cost, including operation, maintenance and administrative costs,
taxes, and depreciation expense to produce and deliver electric service.
19
Cost-of-service study: Technical engineering/accounting studies that allocate the total cost
of providing electric service to groups of similar customers, based on energy usage, peak
use timing, character of service, load factor, voltage, type of metering needed, etc.
Demand: The rate at which electric energy is delivered to customers by a system at a
given instant - or averaged over a designated period - usually expressed in kilowatts or
megawatts.
Demand Side Management (DSM): Measures a utility initiates to encourage the more
efficient end-use of electricity in order to meet a particular objective. Such efforts are
directed at minimizing the size and number of generating facilities or designing strategic
load growth.
Depreciation: Charges made against income to equitably distribute the cost of the
decrease in plant value during the period when services are obtained from the use of the
facilities. The decrease in plant value is caused by wear, deterioration or obsolescence.
Distribution System: The system of lines, transformers and switches that connect between
the transmission network and customer load; that portion of an electric utility system that
delivers service directly to the end-user at relatively low voltages. Most electric
cooperatives are distribution systems, purchasing generation and transmission services
from other organizations. Most investor-owned electric utilities own generation,
transmisSion and distribution assets.
Electric Cooperative: Independent, locally-owned business enterprise, incorporated under
the laws of the state in which it operates. Consumers who receive service are members of
the co-op and share responsibility for its success or failure along with the benefits they
receive.
Environmental Externalities: Environmental costs associated with the production of a
good or service which are not incorporated in the internal cost measurements of the
provider. SUch costs sometimes are imputed theoretically to represent unmeasured costs
to society associated with the production and use of the good or service.
Exempt Wholesale Generators (EWGs): Utility and non-utility generators allowed to sell
wholesale electric power competitively under the Energy Policy Act of 1992.
FERC: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is a part of the U.S. Department of
Energy and is the key mility regulatory agency of the Federal government.
Generation-and-Transmission Cooperatives (G&Ts): Cooperative organizations that
own power plants, generate electricity and transmit it at wholesale to distribution
20
cooperatives. Some G&Ts also have distribution systems for delivery of power to end
users.
Generation Station: A plant at which is located the electric generators and other
equipment for converting mechanical, chemical or nuclear energy into electric energy.
Grid: The layout of the electrical transmission system or a synchronized transmission
network.
Independent Power Producer (IPP): An entity that owns facilities to generate electric
power for sale to utilities.
Integrated Resource Planning: A process to control electric power planning through
both demand side management (to reduce the need or demand for electricity) and supply
side management. (to redistribute the types of needed electric generation among fuel types,
location, etc.) to accomplish appropriate tradeoffs among cost, reliability, diversify risk,
flexibility and in some states specified social and environmental goals.
Independent System Operator (ISO): ISOs will likely play a significant role in promoting
effective competition by providing for efficient access to bulk power transmission facilities
through consolidation of individual transmission systems into larger ones. ISOs will also
provide greater functional separation between transmission and generation and will help
reduce opportunities for vertical market power abuses. ISOs are also likely to play a key
role in assuring reliability.
Interconnection: A tie line or connection permitting the flow of electric energy between
the facilities of two electric systems.
Investor-Owned Utility (IOU): A utility operated by a public corporation in which
ownership shares are held by individual investors who supply the capital in expectation of
earnings on their investments.
Kilowatt (kw): A measure of electric power equal to one thousand watts.
Kilowatt-hour (kwh): A measure of electricity consumption equivalent to the use of one
thousand watts of power over a one-hour period.
Load: The amount of electric power delivered or required at any specified point on a
system. Load originates at the power-consuming equipment of the customers.
Load Factor: The ratio of the average load in kilowatts supplied during a designated
period to the peak load in kilowatts occurring in that period.
21
Marginal Cost: The incremental cost of serving any additional demand, volume, or
customers over or beyond a previous pattern or level of consumption
Marginal-Cost Pricing: A system of pricing designed to ignore all costs except those
associated with producing the next increment of power generation; also referred to as
incremental cost pricing.
Market-Based Pricing: Electric service prices determined in an open market system of
supply and demand under which the price is set solely by agreement as to what a buyer
will pay and a seller will accept. Such prices could recover less or more than full cost,
depending upon what the buyer and seller see as their relevant opportunities and risks.
Municipal Utility: A utility serving the end-user that is owned and operated by a
municipality.
Municipalization: The process used by an entity to legally declare itself a municipality for
the purpose of obtaining certain tax benefits and the fight to engage in other enterprises
including establishing an electric utility and purchasing power at "wholesale."
Non-Utility Generators (NUGs): Independent power providers defined under the Energy
Policy Act of 1992. NUGs generate electricity that is not exclusively or primarily owned
by an electric utility and operates connected to an electric utility system.
Obligation to Serve: The concept embodied in the statutes of most states governing the
retail or end-use provision of electric service in which a utility is required to serve all
customers who request service, regardless of the relative profitability of such customers,
without unduly discriminatory prices. This obligation is the public policy requirement
demanded in return for the granting of exclusive right to serve a geographic area at retail.
Open Access: A regulatory mandate to allow other entities to use a utility's transmission
and distribution facilities to move bulk power from one point to another on a
nondiscriminatory basis for a cost-based fee.
Original Cost: The amount of investment made to build or buy a given plant when first
devoted to public service.
Peak Demand: The maximum rate at which electric energy is delivered to or by a system
during a specific period of time.
Peaking Capacity: The capacity of generating equipment that is used to meet the highest
daily, weekly or seasonal loads - usually only for short periods when consumers use much
more power.
22
Power Marketers: Sales agents for wholesale electric power. Can be either a utility or
non-utility entity. Such entities contract with sellers as the middleman in selling bulk
power in return for a margin or fee on the transaction.
Power Marketing Administration (PMA): Congress established five federal power
marketing administrations to sell hydroelectric power generated by federal dams and
power plants: Bonneville Power Administration, Western Area Power Administration,
Southwestern Power Administration, Southeastern Power Administration and Alaska
Power Administration.
Power Pools: An association of two or more electric systems interconnected for the
sharing of reserve generating capacity and power production coordination.
Preference: A provision written in law that gives publicly owned utilities and cooperatives
priority access to federal power. (See PMA)
Price Cap: A method of setting a utility distribution company's rates whereby a maximum
allowable price is established by regulators, flexibility in pricing is allowed, and efficiency
gains can be captured by the company.
Public Utility: A business enterprise rendering a service considered essential to the public
and, as such, subject to regulation in the public interest, usually by statutory law.
PUHC,4: The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 was enacted to halt monopoly
abuses in the utility industry. PUHCA required utility "holding companies" to register with
the Securities Exchange Commission and to submit to extensive regulation.
PURPA: The Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, passed by the U.S.
Congress. This statute requires states to implement utility conservation programs and
create special markets for cogenerators and small power producers who meet certain
standards, including the requirement that states set the prices and quantities of power the
utilities must 'buy from such facilities.
Qualifying Facility (QFs): Any nonutility generation plant that qualifies under the
specifications of PUKPA to sell power to public utilities.
Rate Base: The value of property upon which an investor-owned utility is given the
opportunity to earn a specified rate of return as established by a regulatory authority. The
rate base represents the value of property used by the utility in providing service.
Rate Design: The development of electricity prices for various customer classes to meet
revenue requirements determined by operating needs and costs.
23
Regional Power Exchange (RPX): The purpose of an RPX is to provide dispatch logic
for generation and to extablish a competitive spot market for electricity. It is believed
that in order to have broad based retail competition, an RPX must be formed to operate in
concert with an ISO (see definition above).
Reliability: The degree to which electric power is made available to those who need it in
sufficient quantity and quality to be dependable and safe. The degree of reliability may be
measured by the frequency, duration and magnitude of adverse effects on consumer
services.
Reserves: The amount of installed generation which exceeds the operating generation
capacity needed to meet the expected peak load of a given utility with a defined statistical
probability. Standards vary from utility to utility, but most utility planners currently
consider a 15-20 percent reserve margin essential to good reliability.
Restructuring: The changes in the electric utility industry being considered through
regulatory and statutory policies that govern production, transmission and distribution.
Retail: Sales of electric energy supplied for residential, commercial and industrial end use
purposes; other classes such as agriculture and street lighting are included in this category.
Retail II'heeling: The sale of electricity by a utility or other supplier to a retail customer in
another utility's service territory. Wheeling refers to the use of the local utility's
transmission and distribution lines to deliver the power from a wholesale supplier to a
retail customer by a third party.
Rural Electrification Administration (REA). The REA was created in 1935 under the
authority of the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. The REA was established
as an independent lending agency with the passage of the Rural Electrification Act of
1936; REA's goal was to electrify rural America. (See also KUS)
Rural Utilities Service (RUS): This new federal agency was created in 1994 to succeed
the I~A which was abolished by a reorganization of the Department of Agriculture.
Small Power Producer (SPP): A facility, defined under PURPA, which generates
electricity using waste, renewable (water, wind and solar), or geothermal energy as a
primary energy resource - and although fossil fuels can be used, renewable resources must
provide at least seventy-five percent of total energy.
Stranded Benefits: Benefits associated with regulated retail electric service which may be
at risk under open market retail competition. Examples are conservation programs, fuel
diversity, reliability of supply, and customers' continued access to low cost generation
sources for which they have historically paid the carrying cost.
24
Stranded Investment or Costs: An investment with a cost recovery schedule that was
initially approved by regulatory action that subsequent regulatory action or market forces
has rendered not practically recoverable; costs that electric utilities are currently permitted
to recover through rates but whose recovery may be prevented by the advent of
competition in the industry.
Transmission: The network of high voltage lines, transformers, and switches used to
move electrical power from generators to the distribution system; also used to
interconnect different mility systems and independent power producers together into a
synchronized network.
Unbundling: Separation of the total process of electric power service from generation to
metering into its component parts for the purpose of separate pricing or service offerings.
Universal Service: In common modem construction, universal electricity service means
reaching every member of society, no matter how remote or poor. Widespread access to
electric service is seen as a policy goal of sufficient importance to justify rate subsidies, a
legal obligation to serve and other forms of government intervention in the industry. In
essence, universal service is equated with ubiquitous geographic coverage and universal
household penetration.
}Vheeling: An electric utility operation wherein transmission facilities of one system are
used to transmit power produced by another system.
Wholesale Sales: Energy supplied to other electric utilities, cooperatives, municipal,
Federal and state electric agencies, as well as power marketers for resale to ultimate
consumers.
Wholesale Wheeling: The process of moving bulk power from a generator across one or
more utility-owned transmission systems to another utility for resale.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
BE IT RESOLVED for purposes of public necessity, conve-
nience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, the Albemarle
County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent
to amend the Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan to modify the
Development Area boundary for Urban Area Neighborhood 3 to
reflect the development plan as approved in the zoning action for
ZMA-98-17, Ashcroft Phase 6 PRD.
FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission is requested
to hold a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and to
return its recommendations to this Board at the earliest possible
date.
I Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing
writing is a true copy of a resolution of intent adopted by the
Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, at a
regular meeting held on February 17, 1999.
Supervisors
January 28, 1999
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Planning & Community Development
401 M¢Intire Road, Room 218
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296 - 5823
Fax (804) 972 - 4035
Rick Beyer
Liberty Land Limited
660 Hunters Place Suite I01
Charlottesville, VA 22911
ZMA-98-17 Ashcroft, Phase IV
Tax Map 78, Parcel 5lA
Dear Mr. Beyer:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 26, 1999, by a vote of
4-2, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and
receive public comment at their meeting on February 17, 1999. 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.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: 'x~l(a Carey
Jack Kelsey
Amelia McCulley
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
William D. Fritz, AICP
January 26, 1998
February 17, 1998
ZMA 98-17 Asheroft Phase 6
Applicant's Proposal:
The applicant is proposing to rezone land adjacent to the existing Ashcrofi subdivision to allow for the
creation of 20 lots between the power line which crosses the property and the Ashcroft development.
The proposed lots range in size from 0.918 acres to 1.182 acres. A single lot of approximately 17 acres
is proposed south of the power line adjacent to Hansen's Mountain Road. [The application plan lists 21
lots adjacent to the Ashcrofi development. However, lot number one is actually part of the Ashcrofi
development and is not subject to this rezoning. ]
Petition:
Petition to rezone approximately 37 acre from RA, Rural Areas to PRD, Planned Residential
Development. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 5 IA is located on the north side of the 1-64
frontage road, F-179 (Hansen's Mountain Road) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site includes
area recommended for Neighborhood Density Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) in
Neighborhood 3 and area recommended for Rural Area.
Character of the Area:
This area is located on the entrance road to Ashcroft. A power line crosses the property. The area to the
south, east and west of the site is primarily open pasture with some wooded area and scattered
residences. Ashcroft is located north of and adjacent to this property.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance and
recommends approval.
Planning and Zoning History:
None available.
Comprehensive Plan:
This property is located on the boundary of the development area. Attachment C is a tax map which staff
has modified to show the Comprehensive Plan Land Use recommendations. The area adjacent to
Ashcroft, between the power line and Ashcroft, is shown as Rural Area. The area south of the power line
and adjacent to Hansen's Mountain Road is shown as Neighborhood Residential (3 to 6 dwelling units
per acre). The acreage of the parcel being proposed for rezoning is approximately 37 acres. Of this area,
approximately 20 acres is proposed to be divided into lots and 17 acres is proposed as a single lot.
The 20 acres proposed for division are located inthe area adjacent to Ashcroft, .between the power line
and A~hcroft which is shown as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The area proposed for a single
17 acre parcel is located in the area shown as Neighborhood Residential in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff notes that within the area shown for Neighborhood Residential and adjacent to the property being
considered for rezoning is a property known as Locust Shade. Locust Shade is located at the intersection
of Hansen's Mountain Road and Lego Drive. This property has been surveyed and noted as potentially
register eligible.
On its face this request is for a rezoning to allow urban development in an area designated as Rural in the
Comprehensive Plan. However, the Comprehensive Plan is intended as a guide to development which
allows for some interpretation in individual instances. Staffhas identified factors which offset the
apparent inconsistency of this application with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed development of the property, as shown on the attached application plan, essentially retains
the same amount of Rural and Development Area acreage. [Development Area acreage is increased by
approximately 3 acres.] The application plan essentially transposes the land use recommendations north
and south of the power line as it crosses this property. Typically staff would recommend a
ComPrehensive Plan amendment for such a change. However, in this case staff does not recommend
review of an amendment due to the small area under consideration. [Staff does recommend that should
this rezoning be approved the Comprehensive Plan should reflect the rezoning action when it is next
updated.] Staff would be able to support a Comprehensive Plan amendment which resulted in a land use
pattern requested by the applicant due to the following factors:
The distribution of lots as proposed by the applicant essentially allows the lots to become part of
and appear to be a part of the existing Ashcrofi development.
The lot sizes proposed for the smaller lots are consistent with the adjacent lot sizes in Ashcrofi.
The single 17 acre parcel proposed south of the power line is consistent with the lot sizes south
of the power line and east of Lego Drive.
Retention of a single large parcel south of the power line will tend to have less of an impact on a
Locust Shade which has been surveyed and noted as potentially register eligible.
Retention of a Rural Area at the intersection, as opposed to a subdivision at the intersection on
Hansen's Mountain Road and Lego Drive will help to preserve the rural character of the area
including the entrance to Ashcroft and areas on Hansen's Mountain Road east of Lego Drive.
If the area south of the power line were to be developed in accordance with the existing
Comprehensive Plan (3 to 6 dwelling units per acre) it would likely be difficult to justify
retention of a Rural Area between such a development and the existing Ashcroft development.
The area south of the power line can be reasonably used for agriculture based on its size and an
analysis of the soils on the property.
Staff opinion is that swapping the designations north and south of the power line results in a more
orderly pattern of development and a pattern which is more consistent with the overall goals of the
County. Therefore, staff does not find this rezoning request to be inconsistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan, although it does not follow the boundaries of the Land Use Plan.
The density of the area proposed for development is approximately 1 unit per acre which is below the
density level recommended for Neighborhood Density in the Comprehensive Plan. [The density of the
entire proposed development is 0.6 dwelling units per acre. Rural Area density is a maximum of 0.5
dwelling units per acre based on a 2 acre minimum lot size.] As the Board is aware, the Comprehensive
2
Plan supports rezoning to the upper end of the density range where possible and practicable. This area is
bounded on three sides by areas designated as Rural in the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning to a density
of 3 to 6 units per acre would not provide for a transition from the Development Area to the Rural Area.
In addition, the existing transportation infrastructure of the area cannot accommodate a significant
increase in the number of dwellings accessing Route 250 from Hansen's Mountain Road. Development
of the area at a higher density than proposed would also be inconsistent with the existing and expected
character of the area.
Based on the above analysis staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 8.5.4 of the zoning ordinance contains the review requirements for planned developments. Staff
will provide comment on each provision.
8.5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
At such time as further conferences appear unnecessary, or at any time on request of the
applicant, the commission shall proceed to prepare its recommendations to the board of
supervisors. The date of the commission's determination to proceed, or of the applicant's
request for preparation of recommendations, shall be deemed the formal date of submission
of the application. Specifically, recommendations of the commission shall include findings as
to:
The suitability of the tract for the general type of PD district proposed in terms of:
relation to the comprehensive plan; physical characteristics of the land; and its relation
to surrounding area;
Staff has previously commented that this proposal is consistent with the intent of the
comprehensive plan and the surrounding area. The physical characteristics of the land present
no significant issues in the development of the property. Therefore, staff opinion is that this
application is consistent with this provision.
b. Relation to major roads, utilities, public facilities and services;
The Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed and commented on this request,
[Attachment E] Based on the comments of VDOT the existing transportation infrastructure can
accommodate the proposed development. The property is currently not in the jurisdictional area
for water and sewer and the applicant will have to file a jurisdictional boundary request for
inclusion of this land prior to approval of the final plats. The applicant proposes use of public
water only. Adequate water supply is available in the system to accommodate the proposed lots.
Staff opinion is that this application is consistent with this provision.
Ce
Adequacy of evidence on unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements,
contracts, deed restrictions, sureties, dedications, contributions, guarantees, or other
instruments, or the need for such instruments or for amendments in those proposed; and
The applicant has met this requirement. The parcel is under a single ownership.
de
Specific modifications in PD or general regulations as applied to the particular case, based
on determination that such modifications are necessary or justified by demonstration that
the public purposes of PD or general regulations as applied would be satisfied to at least
an equivalent degree by such modifications.
No modifications are being requested.
Based on such findings, the commission shall recommend approval of the PD amendment as
proposed, approval conditioned upon stipulated modifications, or disapproval.
Staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal is consistent with the provisions of the zoning
ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has not identified any conditions, amendments or
modifications which should be applied to this application.
SUMMARY:
The area included in this rezoning is on the boundary of the development area. Staff has recommended
that while this proposal is not consistent with the boundaries and recommended land uses of the Land
Use Plan. it is consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Review of the provisions of Section
8.5.4 has allowed staff to determine that this rezoning request is consistent with the provisions of the
zoning ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the analysis of this project for compliance with Section 8.5.4 and review of the Comprehensive
Plan staff recommends approval of this request. The application plan which is attached to this report
limits the development of the property and, therefore, no other proffers or agreements are recommended
by staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Location Map
B - Tax Map
C - Tax Map showing Comprehensive Plan boundary
D- Application Plan
E - VDOT Comments
A::~xna9817 ashcroft reprot.doc
ARLO'1q'ES -
lILLE .E .....
~Mohiicello
'Ash Llw~
784
Stony
ZMA 98-t7
Ashcroft Phase 6
ATTACHMENT A
/
CROSSROADS
ATTACHMENTB'-
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
zMA 98-17
Ashcroff Phase 6
22A
MONTICELLO
20M
SGOTTSVI~E
RIVANNA 'DISTRICTS
SECTION 78
PRD
SECTION ,
I
<-- RURAL AREA
::i <-- NEIGHBORHOOD ~'" 50
I
O ner' Approval
The subdivision of the land described is with
the free consent of and in accordance ~vith the
desires of the undersigned ,Owners, trustees, or
proprietors. Any reference to future potential
development is to be deemed as theoretical only.
All statements affixed to this plat are true and
correct to the best of my kno~/ledge.
R.L. Bey~r Date
To witness the forgoing instrument was acknowledged
before me this day of
My commission expires
/ //
1 4 ?:-
Plannin9 Dept
Etatement .Of T/tie
The land shown was obtained by Liberty Land Ltd.
DB 1715-492, and to the best of my knowledge
meets all the requirements regarding the
platting of subdivisions.
Bryan J. Chambers
Date
Chairperson Alb. Planning Comm.
Demg. Agent Board Of' Supervisors
A;be~arle County
Date
The land use regulations listed/described herein.are imposed pursuent to the Albemarle
County Zoning Ordinance in effect this date and are not restrictive covenants running
with the land and their appearance on this plat is not intended to impose them as such,
Date
Notes:
I. ~qource of lille: DB 1715-492.
2. TMs parcel is not in a flood plain per Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel No, 610006 02~6B for Albemarle County.
$. Application is made for this parcel to be zoned PRD.
4. This parcel m~y not be further divided withou! planning commision approval.
5. Iron markers are at aH corners unless otherwise noted
6. Proposed m~nimum building setbacks are 16' front, 10' sides, 16' rear, and 26' from £ego Drive.
Z The septic setback is 60' from aH streams.
8. Proposed Land Use: $0.6~$ acres for single fami~, residences (Lots 1-21), 17.884 acres for open space
Dwelling Types: Brick or frame homes. DensHy: I DU/O. S8 Acres.
9. Lots 18 through 21, which are double frontage lots, will require screening eonsisten! with Chapt 18 ~ect 32. 7.9.8 ~4) bf the.
Albemarle County Code.
lC. Culpeper Branch is not a perenni~! stream where it adjoins Lots 4, 6, 6, 15, & 14. A stream buffer o£ I00 feet as noted in
~qecUon 1Y-SlY of the Albemarle County Code is not required
11. AH access will be limited to the proposed internal public roads except for Lot 22 and Lot C which ma6' access the existing
public roads directS.
12. Hatched areas of topographer indicate slopes greater than 26%
NO. DELTA RADIUS ARC TAr4GENT C.BEARiNG CHORD
I 3"41 '02"' 1 587.02' 102.04' 51,04' N82°12"47"W 102.02'
2 12°22'14'' 440.00' 95.00' 47,69' S07"03'18"W 94.82'
3 13"43'35" 440,00' 105,41' 52.96' S05°59'37"E 105.16'
4 I 1°18'30'' 380,00' 75,00' 37,62' S07°12'10"E 74,88'
5 15"29'29" 380,00' 102,74' 51.69' S06°11'50"W 102.43'
6 10°14'42'' 817,10' 146,10' 73,25' S08"49'14"W 145.91'
7 13°42'17" 389,21' 93.10' 46.77' S 10°33'02"W 92.87'
8 7°42'51" 697,00' 93.84' 46,99' N62°27'07"E 93.77'
9 1"32'45" 697,00' 18,81' 9.40' N67"04'55"E 18,81'
10 9°17'18" 697.00' 112.99' 56.62' N72°29'56"E I 12.87'
I I 6°58'03" 325.00' 39.52' 19.79' S89°17'40"E 39.50'
12 7"35'13" 325.00' 43.04' 21.55' N83"25'42"E 43.00'
13 15°29'20'' 325.00' 87.86' 44.20' N71°53'26"E 87.59'
14 6°14'39'' 325.00' 35.42' 17.73' N61"01'26"E 35.40'
15 1 "32'36" 645.00' 17.37' 8.69' N 58"40'25"E 17.37'
16 7°39'12" 645.00' 86.16' 43.14' N63°16'19"E 86.09'
17 10°02'41" 645.00' 113.08' 56.68' N72°07'15"E 112.93'
18 12"55'00" 475.00' 107.08' 53.77' S06°23'55"E 106.86'
19 3"16'08" 475.00' 27.10' 13.55' S01°41'39"W 27.10'
20 10"36'51" 475.00' 87.99' 44.12' S08°38'09"W 87.87'
NO, BEARING DISTANCE
BP S32"59'13"W
BQ S02~26'37"W
BR S29°34'08"W
BS S01 °45' 14"W
BT 818°5e'18"W
BU N84"25'59"E
BV S05°37'03"W
BW N58"35'41 "S
ax N58°35'41-E
BY N77°08'35"S
BZ 885°48'39"E
CA N77"08'35"E
CB S13"56'34"W
43. 87'
136.23'
47.96'
97.32'
19.35'
5.04'
20.84'
23.49'
36.86'
25.00'
.60.36'
25.00'
60.36'
NO. BEARING DISTANCE
19.47'
63.12'
170.04'
129.36'
89.07'
83.55'
67.85'
52.95'
54.86'
92.19'
70.64'
139.21'
66.61'
21,80'
49,94'
80.25'
62.17'
139.75'
152.32'
32,51'
8,43'
' 33,39'
98.28'
48.02'
1 36.
44.87'
58.56'
87.35'
40,00'
66.56'
58.54'
32.49'
8.33'
6.50'
33.14'
56.95'
65.56'
AA N32"47'01 "E
AB N10°26'39"E
AC N 16°04'31"E
AD NlS°46'18"E
AE N18"00'35"E
AF N16°41'23"E
AG N 18°42'24"E
AH N 14"21 '42"E
Al N16"49'40"E
AJ N20°38'22"E
AK N12°58'41"E
AL N07"10'23"E
AM N06"06'03"E
AN N00"53'05"E
AO N05"54'57"E
AP N01 "50'52"E
AQ N08°07'07"E
AR N05°36'04"E
AS N03"47'31"W
AT N05"37'03"E
AU S84"25'59"W
AV N 18"58' 18"E
AW N01 °45' 14"E
AX N29°34'08"E
AY N02°26'37"E
AZ N32"59'13"E
BA N 13"23'25"E
BB N10"55'39"E
BC N 18°22' 14"E
BD N12°48'10"E
BE N29°41'03"E
BF N30"47'37"E
BG N22"14'05"E
BH S22° 14'05"W
B! .S30°47'37"W
BJ S29°41'03"W
BK S12°48'10'"W
Plat Showing Eubd/vision 0£ Culoeoer ~, BL S18°22'14'W
Tax Map 78 Parcel 5lA Bra'~c~ ~' BM S18~22',14'~
, ~ BN S10~55 39'W '
Located Near ¢hadwell, Albemarle Count~ Va. 250 ~ - ~ - _ _ BO 813~23'25"W
P ope ty ~ (F-179)~ ~ ~rontage,oau
Liberty Land L E. /o/so/o .
$oale: I'= 100~' Date: ~/~9/98 Rev~: 1~/~8/98 ~~ ~i~ini~ SR~t~h
Bryan Chambers ~ Assoc. - Land $urveying 6~ 25~ Scale: 1"= 2000'
LocaJed m Cour~ ~quare Palmyra ~804) 589-5~39 ~00' 50' 0
Mailing Address: Rt I Box 68, Fork Union, Va. 23055 ~heet 1 Of d '--------'---
5, 00'
34.84'
86.92'
60.50'
100'
ATTACtlM~NT D
Lot 5
Building Setback
Lines. See Note 6
Page 1
Lot, 13
40226 $.?.
O. 923 Ac.
N89o29,30,,E
Lot 6
\
Proposed
Water Line
(W.L.)
284.5G'
Lot 14
x 40000 $.F.
x 0.918 Ac.
\
\
\ \
\ \
\ \
\ \
,%
"', ",%,, 5
Lot 22
779018 $.F.
17.884 Ac.
!
!
!
o1
!
Liberty Land Ltd.
DB 1715-492
DB 434-475 Plat
Ref: DB 944-740
& DB 944-755 Th. 758 Plat
TM 78-5 IA
39. 115 Acres
+1.311 Acres (Par's ~r Th. Z)
-2.000 Acres (Lot' C)
-- 38.426 Acres Total
Lot 7
60O
0.977 Ac.
J
t0
'0
'"' ',, Lot 8
Elect. &
-~ Tele. Line
,,x
~.
~oo ',
-=..-(:.
Lot 21 ,
42679 S.F.
o. 980 ~c.
600
,,, ~, ( ,
!
, ~ t Lot 20 '
~ ·
40371 $.F.
O. 927 Ac.
15" Culvert
Plat Showing Subdivision Of
Tax Map 78 PareeI 5lA
Located Near Shad~rell, Albemarle County, Va.
Property 0£
Liberty' Land Ltd.
Scale: 1"= 100:' Date: 6/29/98 Rev's: 8/16/98; 10/30/98; 12/28/98
,Bryan Chambers ~ Assoc. - Land ~urveying
Located in Court ~quare PaImyra (804) 589-513~
MaJIJ~g Address: Rt I Box 6& Fork Union, Va. 23055
; iS Lot 17
i ig 51475 s.?.
' :m 1.182 Ac. ! /
' \/7
(W.L.)
I
I
I
I.
!
N88°28'17"E
~ 237.15'
6'
Lot 19
42506 S.?.
O. 976 Ac.
i
Lot 18
40126 $.F.
0.92I Ac.
600
Pasture
~ate
!
I
!
I
"
' ~ /
/
/,
!
/
Sheet 3 0t' 4
100' 50' 0 100'
Lot A 'Ashcroft"
R.L. Belier
Construction, Inc.
DB
~ 6oo DB Plat
Parcels W Th. Z were ~, ,~ DB 930-402
¢ DB 810-571 Plat
part of TM 78A-2 and TM 78A'2
have been added to 1.676 Acres
deed recorded in
DB _. and are to $~.
be included in Lots 1, Lot I ~ Iron
2, 3, and 22. 42289 S.F.~ e<.~q'- '
~/~ 9 71 A c. . ~ ;.o .. ..ff Fnd.'
Total //of°-"~ co.e''.
! 6'04"E 5 7e_3- 1 ~
1.72'j
Glenorchy
(Undeveloped)
Harley & Nannie
Easter
DB 331-52£
DB 918-11,l Plat
TM 788- !
Iron
Fnd.
.,~ Proposed Water
' ~'.~ Line- (W.L.)
~ x~ , 15"
994 SFI , ~, [~ Culvert
' Lot 2
~ ~40000 S.F~ Section IV Phase I
Lot 3 O. 91 ~A~ 'Ashcroft"
40000 S.F.~ ~ ~ , DB 803-6~3 Plat
,
0.9~8 Ac. ~ ~ ~ co
/
~ot 4 ...-~ :-'""
, 0.928 Ac: / / - - -'.',~ ~ ,
/ ~-'
, ~% ~ '
Lot 5 ~ Lot 7
455 A .X . , 0.94 ,,(
Lot 6 ~ ) -.=.~= 15"
-- ~ ~ 600
40000 S.F. "
\
,' 0.918 Ac. ,,
, ) ~,,,
, , Lot 9
Lot
c~ Lot ! 1 ) \
, ~: ', ( ~ ,
Lot 13 ', \ ',
, \ 600 _
Plat Showing Subdivision 0£ \
Tax Map 78 Parcel 51A ·
Located Near Shadwe11, Albemarle County, Va.
Property Of
Liberty L~nd Ltd.
Scale: 1"= I00~ Date: 6/29/98 Rev~: 8/16/98; 10/30/9& 12/28/98 Topography used ~as interpolated from
Bbyan Chambers ~ Assoc. - Land Surveying ) a USGS Quadrangle map.
Loealed in Courl Square Palmyra ~804) 589-5139
Mailing Address: RI I Box 68, Fork Union, Va. 23055 Sheei
DAVID R. GEHR
COMMISSIONER
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE 22902-2013
ATTACHMENT E
A. G. TUCKER
RESIDENT ENGINEER
November 12, 1998
ZMA-98-17
Ashcroft Phase 6
Mr. William D. Fritz
Dept. of Planning &
Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA.
22902
Dear Mr. Fritz:
We reviewed Mr. Beyers traffic numbers and time of delay shown and though this
may be less than a professional report, we do not anticipate the development of 23
lots will make any sizable difference. It appears that after the A.M. peak hour
that 80% of the traffic turns right out of the frontage road, which is the easiest
movement to make.
The A.M. peak hour only showed a couple of movements that were beyond a Level
of Service D. The signals at 1-64 should provide gaps for traffic to enter Route
250 from the frontage road. The P.M. peak hour traffic does not reflect any
problem with left turn movements.
If you have any questions, please advise.
Assistant Resident Engineer
HWM/ldw
cc: J. H. Kesterson
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
COUNTY OF ALBEM I i °F
SUPERVISORS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY99/00-FY03/04 Capital Improvement Program Public
Hearing
S UBJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST..
Public Hearing on the proposed FY99/00 - FY03/04
Capital Improvement Program
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Mr. Tucker, Ms. White, Ms. Gulati
AGENDA DATE:
February 17, 1999
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
ITEM NUMBER:
INFORMATION:
INFORMATION:
At the February 3r~ CIP work session, the Board approved adding three projects to the proposed FY99/00
- FY03/04 Capital Improvements Program, the juvenile courthouse at $15 million, the public safety facility
at $4.63 million and the urban gymnasium at $1.53 million. Although the specifics of the bond
referendum, i.e., included projects, financing, timeframe, etc., will come back to the Board at a later time
for review and approval, the proposed FY99/00 - FY03/04 ClP does include $21.13 million in offsetting
revenues from an intended bond referendum in FY01.
DISCUSSION:
Attached for the FY99/00 - FY03/04 Capital Improvement Program public hearing are two spreadsheets.
The first one, pages 1 - 3, lists all the proposed projects for General Government, the Tourism and
Stormwater Funds and the School CIP fund. Any changes from the recommended CIP are highlighted.
You will note the addition of a PVCC project for $37,236, which is the County's required contribution to
the renovation of PVCC's main academic building. This request was submitted along with their operating
budget request and has been funded with additional operating revenues transferred to the ClP. The
second spreadsheet, pages 4-5, shows the total available revenues and the revenues broken down into
the four major funds.
The Board's FY99/00 - FY03/04 ClP totals $82.162 million dollars, $44.695 in School ClP fund projects
and $36.911 in General Government projects.
Also included for your review is a handout for the public that lists all the general government and school
division projects, their costs and the years in which the project will be completed.
RECOMMENDATION:
This information is provided for the public hearing and does not require any action at this time. Final
approval of the FY99/00 - FY03/04 Capital Improvements Program and adoption of the FY99/00 CIP
budget is scheduled for April 14 in conjunction with approval of the FY99/00 Operating Budget.
99.026
FY 1999/00 - 2003/04 Capital Improvements Program
Type, Proiect
GENERAL GOVERNMENT CIP FUND
Rev
Rev
Rev
Rev
Rev
Rev
New
Rev
Rev
Cont
Rev
Rev
Cont
Rev
Cont
Rev
Cont
Cont
Cont
Rev
Rev
Rev
Cont
Rev
Rev
Rev
Rev
Rev
Cont
Total Other Net County
Cost, Fundin,q County Prior
Administration,& C,ourts
County Computer upgrade Ongoing
County Facilities Maintenance/Replace. Ongoing
Court Square Maintenance/Replace. Ongoing
J&D Court Maintenance/Replace. OnRoin.q
Subtotal Ongoing
Public Safety Proiects
Fire/Rescue Building & Equip. Fund Ongoing
Fire/Rescue Management Software 42,500
Juvenile Detention Facility 6,213,155
Police Firing Range 1,240,000
Police LAN Upgrade 165,000
Public Safety Mobile Command Center 150,000
Transport Vehicle for Arrests 40,.0.00
Subtotal 12,480,655
Hi,qhways & Transportation
Airport Road Sidewalk
Georgetown Road Sidewalk
Greenbrier Drive Pedestrian/Bike Path
Greenbrier/Hydraulic Rd. Streetlights
Ivy Road Landscaping
Meadow Creek Parkway - Phase II
Neighborhood Plan Implementation Pgm.
Revenue Sharing / Traffic Calming
Route 29North Landscaping
Seminole/Pepsi Place Connector
Sidewalk Construction Program
Subtotal
0 Ongoing 850,000
0 Ongoing 596,768
0 Ongoing 0
is,~,~ t51oss~ ~o00
75.000 Onf:loir~l 30,000
15,130,000 Ongoing 1,531,768
Library Projects
Library Computer Upgrade
Maintenance/Replacement Projects
Subtotal
0 Ongoing 1,175,000
42,500 0
4,148,820 2,064,336 598,611
0 1,240,000 40,000
0 165,000 0
o ~
0
o 15o, ooo o
0 40,000 0
4,148,820 8,33t,836 1,813,61t
Parks, Recreation & Culture
ADA Changes - Schools
Cashier Booth Imp.: CGL, MSV, WC
Chris Greene Lake Property Purchase
252,000 126,000 126,000 0
120,000 60,000 60,000 0
75,000 0 75,000 0
19,250 0 19,250 1,750
199,000 0 199,000 0l
4,299,060 11100,000 3,199,060 109,060
I
Ongoing 0 Ongoing 70,000~
Ongoing 0 Ongoing Yearly[
691,000 673,000 18,000 18,000~
557,000 529,100 27,900 0
Ongoing 0 Ongoing 100,000
6,212,310 2,488,100 3,724,210 298,810
839,166 348,275 490,891 344,438
On~oin~ Onqoin.q Ongoing Onc~oina
839,166 348,2.75 490,891 344,438
268,000
69,000
113,400
0 268,000 195,705
0 69,000 0
0 113,400 0
FYO0-04
Total
1,020,000
2,884,160
400,000
75,000
1~379,160
1,870,092
0
1,465,725
1,200,000
165,000'
i50,000
40,000
9,520,817
126,00C
60,000
75,000
o
0
0
155,ooo
2,200,000~
0
0
225,000j
2,841,000
146,453
!87,!00
333,553
0
69,000
113,400
FY 99/00 .FY 00/01 .FY 01/02 F'Y.02/03 FY 03/04
185,000 170,000 225,000 220,000 220,00,
824,160 375,000 500,000 635,000 550,000
50,000 90,000 80,000 130,000 50.000
0 7;375 ~ 7;375;~ 0
!5,000 ,~5,000 15~,000 15,000 15,~0
1,074,160 900,000 8,195,000 8,375,000 835,000
215,384 296,332 350,000 500,000 508,376
0 0 0 0 0
1,465,725 0 0 0 0
0 0 30,000 30,000 1,140,000
0 0 0 165,000
3o,ooo o 0 o
0 0 0 75,000 75,000
O_ 0_. 40,000 _0 0
1,711,109 296,332 420,000 770,000 6,323,376
0 126,000 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 60,000
75,000 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 55,000 50,000 50,000
400,000 400,000 400,000 500,000 500,000
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 50,000 75,000 50,000 50,000
475,000 576,000 530,000_ 600,000 660,000
98,953 47,500 0 0 0
25,0p0 15,000 33,000 13,500 100.600
123,953 62,500 33,000 13,500 100,600
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 22,847 46,153
0 0 0 0 113,400
Total
FYO0-04
1,020,00C
2,884,16C
400,000
75,00(3
19,379,16(3
1,870,092
1,465,725
1,200,00C
165,00C
150,00(;
40,00C
9,520,8t7
126,0¢
6o,oo~
75,00C
155,00
2,200,00C
225,00
2,841,00(]
146,453
187,100
333,553
69,000
113,40~
2/10/996:04 PM I BOS Proposed fy00-04 cip.xlsFive Year Summary
FY 1999/00 - 2003/04 Capital Improvements Program
Total Other Net County
Tvloe Project Cost FundinR County Prior
Rev County Athletic Field Study/Dev. 1,459,000 0 1,459,000 145,000
Cont Crozet Park Athletic Field Development 640,000 0 640,000 141,070
Cont Ivy Landfill Recreation Access Dev. 330,000 0 330,000 30,000
Cont New High School Cmty. Rec. Facilities 343,500 0 343,500 293,500
New New urban Area GymnaSiUm 1,530,O00 0 1,530,000 O
Cont PVCC Softball Field Lighting 166.000 0 166,000 0
PVCC Facl!itY Ren°VatJon 1,847,000 1,809,764 37~23~ 0
Cont School Athletic Field Irrigation 136,500 0 136,500 0
Cont Scottsvitle Community Center Imp. 336,905 0 336, 905 212,240
Rev So. Albemarle Organization Park Dev. 500,000 0 500,000 100,000
Cont Towe Lower Field Irrigation 20.000 0 20,000 0
Cont Walnut Creek Park Improvements 2,351.025 350,000 2,001,025 1,950,000
Rev Maintenance/Replacement Projects Oneoino 6,500 Onooino 19.1,000
Subtotal 10,110,330 2,166,264 7,950,566 3,258,515
Utility Improvement Projects
Rev Keene Landfill Closure 2,.565,808 0 2,565,808 ;1,59.0,808
Subtotal 2,565,808 0 2,565,808 1,590,808
TOTAL GENERAL GOVT. PROJECTS
TOTAL GENERAL GO .V~'. REVENUES
OVER/UNDER
32,208,269 24,281,469 23,063,311 8,837,950
FY 00-04
Total
758,599
498,930
300,000
50,000
t,530,000
166,000
136,500
124,665
200,000
20,000
51,025
306,450
4,361,805
475,000
475,O00
36,911,335
FY 991O0 FY O0/01 FY.01102 FY 02/03. FY 03/04
45,000 66,575 186.160 196,355 --~,,509
128,000 t48,000 130,930 92,000 0
0 300,000 0 0 0
0 0 50,000 0 0
0 0 0 0 1,530,000
0 0 83,000 83,000 0
18,6i8 18,618 0 - 0 0
0 0 68,250 68,250 0
12,785 67,880 44,000 0 0
25,000 25,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
0 0 20,000 0 0
24, 500 26,525 0 0 0
2t ,730 3.9,000 59,900 68,000 1.1.7,820
275,633 691,598 692,240 580,452 2,121,882
75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
75,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 1O0,0O0
3,734,855 2,626,430 9,970,240 10,438,952 t0,140,858
3,734,855 2,626,430 9,970,240 10,438,952 10.140.858
0 0 0 0 0
Total
,Fy.,,O0-O4
758,599
498,930
300,000
50,000
1~530,000
166,000
37,236
136,500
124,665
200,000
20,000
51,025
306.450
4,361,805
475.000
475,000
36,911.335
36,911,335
0
Total Other Net County
Type Proi.ect Cost Funding County Prior
TOURISM FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
Rev Ivy Road Bike Lanes
Rev Rivanna Greenway Access & Path
New River Access Improvements
Subtotal
Cont
TOTALTOURISM CIP PROJECTS
~OTAL~OURISM ClP,REVENUES
OVER/UNDER
Project
STORMWATER FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
County Master Drainage Program
287,000 0 287,000 55,50C
Ongoing 140,000 Ongoing 375,000
Onfloin~ 0 On~oin_cl 0
287,000 140,000 ?.87,000 430,560
2871000 140,000 287,O00 430,500
FY O0-O4
Total
231,500
150,000
64,.00~
445,500
445,5O0
Total Other Net County I FY O0-O4
Cost Funding County Prior I Total
!
555,000 45,000 510,000 450,000~ 60,000
FY 99/00
0
50,000
30,900
80,000
FY 00/01
0
25,000
25,000
P(.01102
231,500
25,000
256,560
I
FY 02/030 FY 03/04 0II
25,000 25,000!
0 3.4,0001
25,000 59,000
80,O00 25,000 256,500 25,O00 59,000
80,000 25,000 256,500 25,000 59,000
0 0 0 0 0
FY 99/00 FY 00101 FY 01102 FY 02/03
0 60,000 0 0
Total
FY 00-04
231,50C
15o,o0~
64,00~
Total
FY03/04 FY.00.04
0 60,000
2/10/996:04 PM 2 BOS Proposed fyO0-04 cip.xlsFive Year Summary
FY 1999/00 - 2003/04 Capital Improvements Program
Total
~ Prolect Cost
Cont Drainage/Erosion Correction 450.000
Subtotal 1,6O5,000
TOTAL STORMWATER PROJECTS
TOTAL STORMWATER REVENUES
OVER/UNDER
1 ,oo5,ooo
Total
~ Pr, oiect ,,Cost
REQUESTED SCHOOL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS
Cont Northern Area Elementary Recreation - 500,000
New Southern Area Elem. School Rec. 565,000
Cont AHS Restoration 2, 215,000
Cont Administrative Technology 632,500
Cont Brownsville Addition 1,210,000
Cont CATEC Cosmetology Lab 76,468
Cont Crozet Kitchen 65,000
Cont Henley Renovation 200,000
Cont Hollymead Gym Restrms 857,000
Cont Instructional Technology 5,082,215
Cont Monticello High Addition 8,398,000
Cont Murray High Renovations 1,029,000
Cont Northern Elementary tl,218,000
Cont WAHS Renovations 4,220,375
Cont Western High Window Repl. 230,000
New Budey Library Add/Reno(Lib) 6,800,000
New Jouett Add/Reno 2,615,000
New Scottsville Library Add. 495,000
New Southern Urban Etem. 8,935,000
New Walton Add. 606,000
Rev ADA Structural Changes 1,175,963
Rev Maintenance Replacement !0,127,053
Subtotal 67,252,574
TOTAL REQUESTED SCHOOL CIP PROJECTS 67,252,574
TOTAL RECOMM. SCHOOL REVENUES
OVER/UNDER
TOTAL REQUESTED ClP:
16O,752,843
Other
Fundin~
45,000
45,000
Other
Fundin,q
38,234
393,496
0
431,730
431,730
24,898,189
Net
County
450,000
960,000
Net
Copnty
500,000
565,000
2,215,000
632,500
1,210,000
38,234
65,000
200,000
857,000
5,082,215
8,398,000
1,029,000
10,824,504
4,220,375
230,000
6,86O,000
2,615,000
495,000
8,935,000
606,000
1,175,963
10,127,053
66,820,844
66,820,844
91,131,155
COURty
.P. riQr
200,000
650,000
County
Prior
1,566,00
302,500
3,096,65
0
165,000
10,000
3,718,375
930,96
2,179,640
11,969,128
11,969,128
21,887,578
FY00-04
Total
50,000
110,000
110,6O0
FY00-04
Tqtal
500,000
335,000
649,000
330,000
1,210,000
38,234
65,000
200,000
857,00o
1,985,565
330,000
864,000
10,814,504
502,000
230,000
6,600,000
2,615,000
75,000
8,935,000
606,000
245,000
6.509.260
44,695,563
44,695,563
82,162,398
FY 99/O0
.FY 00t01
50,000
110,000
FY 01102 FY 02/03
0 0
0 t10,000 0 0
~ 1!o,ooo Q ~
0 0 0 0
FY 99100 .FY 00101 FY 01102 FY 02/03
300~00 200,000 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 649,000 0
70,000 50,000 70,000 70,000
0 0 120,000 1,090,000
38,234 0 0 0
0 0 65,000 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 100,000
439,700 250,000 395,865 450,000
0 0 0 0
0 0 864,000 0
971,504 9,843,000 0 0
502,000 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
300,000 1,700,000 4,800,000 0
0 0 275,000 2,340,000
0 0 0 0
0 0 500,000 3,000,000
0 0 0 t00,000
30,000 0 0 0
1,184,367 604,640 1,743,830 1,343,830
3,83~805 12,647,640 9,482,695 8,493,830
3,835,805 12,647,640 9,482,695 8,493,830
3,835,8Q5 ,12,647,64o 9.482.695 8,493,830
0 0 0 0
15,409,070
7,650,66O
19,709,435 18,957,782
Total
FY 03/0,4 FY 00-04
50,00<
110,000
O 110,00~
110,00~
0
II
Total
FY 03104 0 FY 00-04
500,00C
335,000J 335,00C
0 649,00C
70,000 330,00C
0 1,210,00C
0 38,23,~
0 65,00C
200,000 200,00C
757,000 857,00C
450,000 1,985,56~
330,000 330,00C
0 864,00~
0 10,814,504
0 502,00C
230,000 230,00(~
0 6,800,00C
0 2,615,00C
75,000 75,00C
5,435,000 8,935,00C
506,000 606,000
215,000 245,000
1,632,593 6,509.260
10,235,593 44,695,563
10,235,593 44,695,563
10,235,593 44,695,563
20,435,451 82,162,398
2/t0/996:04 PM 3 BOS Proposed fy00-04 cip. xlsFive Year Summary
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
FY1999/00 - FY2003104
Proposed
Capital Improvement
Program
FY1999/00 - FY2003/04
General Government $36.911
School Division $~.696
~i Tourism Fund $0,4~5
Stormwater Fund $0.110
Total CIP $82.162
General Govt. Fund
Overview
~Admini~slrati~& C~ts 1,074 0,~00 8,195 8.375~ 0.~5 19.37~
;~p~a~ 0,475 0.576 0,~ 0.~ 0,~0 2,~I
~ ~ 0.075 0,1~ 0.1~ 0.1~; 0.1~ ~475~
~T~al ~.7~ ~7 $9.970 $10.~ $10.141 ~.91t
County Computer Upgrade $1,020 00-04
County Maint/Replace $2.884 00-04
Juvenile Courthouse $15.000 01-03
Court Square Maint/Replace. $0.400 00-04
~3 & D Court Maint/Replace. $_0.075 00-04
Total $19,379
Bldg,& Equip Fund $1.870 00-04
.luvenile Der. Facility $1.466 00
Regional Police Firing Range
and Training Facility $1.200 02-04
Public Safety Facility $4.630 00/04
Police LAN upgrade $0.165 03
Mobile Command Ctr. $0.150 03-04
Transport Vehicle $0.040 02
Total $9.521
Highway/Transportation
~'~i Airport Rd. Sidewalk $0.126 01
~;~; Georgetown Rd. Sidewalk $0.060 04
~=! Greenbr. Dr Pedestr./Bike Path $0.075 00
!~ Neighborhood Improve. $0,155 02-04
.~! Rev,Sharing/Traffic Calming $2,200 00~04
:~ Sidewalk Construction $0.225 01-04
Total $2.841
Library Projects
Computer Upgrade $0.146 00-01
Maintenance/Repair $0.187 00-04
Total $0.333
Parks/Recreation Projects
Cashier Booth Improve $0.069 03-0~
Chris Greene Property $0.113 04
Athletic Fields De/el. $0.759 00-04
Crozet Park Fields $0.499 00-03
Ivy Landfill Rec. area $0.300 01
Monticello Rec, Facility $0.050 02
PVCC Softball Lighting $0.166 02-03
Athletic Field Irrigation $0.137 02-03
Scottsville Comm. Ctr. $0.125 00-02
Parks/Recreation (cont}
So. Albemarle Park $0,200 00-04
Towe Irrigation $0.020 02
Walnut Creek Improv, $0.051 0-01
Urban Area Gym $1.530 0~
PVCC Facility Renov. $0.037 00-01
Maintenance/Replace. $0,306 00-04
TomO $4.362
Utility Improvement
Projects
~ Keene Landfill Closure $0.475 00-04
General Govt. Summary
Revenues
General Fund Transfer $12.754
Borrowed Funds $22.596
Courthouse Maintenance Funds $ 0.234
Interest/carry-over $ 0,313
Misc. Reimbursements (city, uva)$ 1,014
Total Revenue $36.9111
Tourism Fund Projects
Ivy Road Bike Lanes $0.232 02
Rivanna Greenway $0.150 00-04
River Access $0,064 00/04
Total $0.~[6
2
Stormwater Projects
Master Drainage Prog. $0.060 01
Drainage/Erosion $0.050 01
Total $0.110
School Projects
ii~ Requested Projects $~,~.696
i~ Fund~ or~ * $4~.6,96
Sh~all $0
*Based on transfer of local revenues from
maintenance/repk~ement to debt service
Brownsville addition $1.210 02-03
BuHey UbraryAdd,/Renovation $6.800 00-02
Hollymead gym/tostitos $0,857 03-04
3ouett Addition/Renovation $2.61S 02-03
Honticello H$ addition $0.330 04
Northern Elementary $10.815 00-01
Scottsvifle Library Addition $0.075 04
Southern Urban Elementary ' $8,g35 02-04
WAHS renovations $0.S02 00
Walton Addition $0.606 03-04
Total $32.74S
School Renovation
Projects ~ ,~...,/~',, I
AHS restoraUon $0,649 02
CATEC cosmetology lab $0.038 00
Crozet kitchen $0.065 02
Henley renovation $0.200 04
Hurray High renovations $0.804 02
WAHS window replace S0.230 04
Total $2.046
~!: ADA structural changes $0.245 00/04
i~ Maintenance/Replacement $6.S09 00-04
,~!. Northern Elem. Recreation S0.S00 00-01
~,~ Southern Elem. Recreation $0.335 04
!~ AdministraUve Technology $0.330 00-04
~ Znstzuctional Technology S1,985 O0-04
Total $9.904
3
Debt Service Ratios
0.0%
8,O%
7~%
6~%
10.0% 10.0%
8.6%
FY99 FYO0 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04
Proposed ~ I~lk:y]
Proposed FY1999100 - FY2003104 Capital Improvements Program
... Projects/Revenues FY 99100 FY 00101
Summary of Total Available Revenues by Type of Revenue - All Funds:
FY 01102 FY 02/03 FY 03~04 Total 00-04
Requested Proiects:
General Government Projects 3,734,855 2,626,430 9,970,240 10,438,952 10,140,858 36,911,335
Tourism Fund Projects 80,000 25,000 256,500 25,000 59,000 445,500
Stormwater Projects 110,000 - 110,000
School Projects .. 3 835,805 .12 647 640 ... 9 482 695 . 8 493,830 10,23,5,593 44,695 563
Total Projects 7,650,660 15,409,070 19,709,435 18,957,782 20,435,451 82,162,398
Recommended Revenues:
General Fund Transfer to ClP 2,157,930 2,357,930 2,447,312 2,801,952 3,098,458 12,863,582
ClP Fund Balance 520,000 220,000 223,128 200,000 200,000 1,363,128
Tourism Fund Revenues 55,000 25,000 256,500 25,000 59,000 420,500
Interest Earned 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000
City Reimbursements 14,500 18,000 127,400 405,000 564,900
UVA Reimbursements - - 10,000 35,000 405,000 450,000
Courthouse Maintenance Funds 41,200 44,000 46,800 49,600 52,400 234,000
State Construction Funding 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,000,000
State Reimbursements 25,000 - - 25,000
Borrowed Funds -Gen. Govt. 1,465,725 250,000 7,375,000 7,375,000 6,130,000 22,595,725
VPSA Bonds - Schools 2,835,805 .11,947,640 8~782,695 7,793,830 .. 9 535 593. 40 895 563
Total Revenues 7,650,660 15,409,070 19,709,435 18,957,782 20,435,451 82,162,398
Excess Re.venuel(Shorffall) ~ - - .. .
Cumulative Shortfall -
CIP Fund Detail:
Revenue Summary - General Govt. Capital Improvement Fund
Available Resources:
Borrowed Funds - Juvenile Det. 1,465,725 - - - 1,465,725
2 ooo 7 37s, ooo 7i37s;o ... lS, OOO,ooo
:FUnds~:'U~" Gym ' - ' - 1;530,000 i '1,530,000
Courthouse Maintenance Funds 41,200 44,000 46,800 49,600 52,400 234,000
City Reimbursements 14,500 18,000 127,400 405,000 564,900
UVA Reimbursements 10,000 35,000 405,000 450,000
Interest 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000
CIP Fund Balance 20,000 20,000 23,128 - 63,128
Gene. tel Fu.nd Transfer to CIP 2~15~9'30/ 2~247,930 2,447,312 . . 2,801,952 .3,098,458 12,753,582
Subtotal Revenues 3,734,855 2,626,430 9,970,240 10,438,952 10,140,858 36,911,335
Recommended Projects 3,734,855 2,626,430 9,970,240 10,438,952 10,140,858 36,911,335
Excess Revenuel(Shorffall) - - -
cumulativ® Shortfall .... - "- "
2/10/996:18 PM [Page]4 BOS Proposed fy00-04 cip.xIsRevenues
rRevenue Summary - Tourism Fund Capital ProJects
~,vailable Resources:
State Reimbursements 25,000 25,000
l'ourism Fund Revenues 55,000 , 25,000 ,256,500 25,000 59,000 , , 420,5,00
Subtotal Revenues 80,000 25,000 256,500 25,000 59,000 445,500
Recommended Projects 80,000 25,000 256,500 25,000 59,000 445,500
Excess Revenue/(Shortfall) .. - - -
~umulative Sh0rffall ~ - ' -
Project,/Revenues FY 99100 FY 00101 , FY 01102 ...... ,F~ 0~03 FY 03/04 Out Year
Revenue Summary - School Division Capital Improvement Fund
Available Resou.rcep.'.
VPSA Bonds (1) 2,~,805 ;I,947;640 8,7821695 7;793,830 9i535,593 ' 40 895,563
Interest Earned 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000
CIP Fund Balance 500,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,300,000
State Construction Funding 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,000,000
Gene[al, Fund Transfer to CIP (2) ~" - . ' ' ' ', - ' -
Subtotal Revenues 3,835,805 12,647 640 9,482 695 8,493,830 10, ,593
, , 44,695,563
Recommended Projects 3,835,805 12,647,640 9,482,695 8,493,830 t0,235,593 44,695,563
Excess Revenuel(Shortfall) .. - - ... .. . .
Cumulative Shortfall - - -
Revenue Summary - Stormwater Fund Capital Improvement Projects
Available .Resources:
General Fund Transfer to CIP 110,.0.00 - - 1.10,000
Subtotal Revenues 110,000 - - 110,000
Recommended Projects 110,000 - - 110,000
Excess Revenuel.(Sho. rtfall) - - -
cUmulative'Shortfall - ~ '- ........
2/10/996:21 PM [Page]5 BOS Proposed fy00-04 cip.xlsRevenues
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
FY1999/00 - FY2003/04
Proposed
Capital Improvement
Program
FY1999/00 - FY2003/04
General Government $36.911
School Division $44.696
Tourism Fund ' $0.445
Stormwater Fund $0.110
Total CIP $82.162
General Govt. Fund
Overview
General Govt-
Admin/Courts ~~U
County Computer Upgrade $1.020 00-04
County Maint/Replace $2.884 00-04
Juvenile Courthouse $15.000 01-03
Court Square MaintJReplace. $0.400 00-04
J & D Court Maint]Replace. $0.075 00-04
Total $19,379
Public ~af~tY Projects~ I
Bldg.& Equip Fund $1.870 00-04
Juvenile Det. Fadlity $1.466 00
Regional Police Firing Range
and Training Fadlity $1,200 02-04
Public Safety Facility $4,630 00/04
Police LAN upgrade $0,165 03
Mobile Command Ctr, $0.150 03-04
Transport Vehicle $0.040 02
Total $9.521
Highway/Transportation
I Airport Rd. Sidewalk $0.126 O1
I Georgetown Rd. Sidewalk $0.060 04
I Greenbr. Dr Pedestr./Bike Path $0.075 00
I Neighborhood Improve. $0.155 02-04
I Rev. Sharing/Traffic Calming $2.200 00-04
I Sidewalk Construction $0.225 01-04
Total $2.841
! Computer Upgrade $0.146 0010~
! Maintenance/Repair $0.187 00-04
Total $0.333
Parks/Recreation Projects
Cashier Booth Improve $0,069 03-04
Chris Greene Property $0.113 04
Athletic Fields Devel. $0.759 00-04
Crozet Park Fields $0.499 00-03
Ivy Landfill Rec. area $0.300 01
Monticello Rec. Facility $0.050 02
PVCC Softball Lighting $0.166 02-03
Athletic Field Irrigation $0.137 02-03
Scottsville Comm. Ctr. $0.125 00-02
Parks/Recreation (cont)
· I So. Albemarle Park $0.200 00.04
I Towe Irrigation $0.020 02
! Walnut Creek Improv. $0.051 0-01
I Urban Area Gym $1.530 04
I PVCC Facility Renov. $0.037 00-01
I Maintenance/Replace. $0.306 00-04
To $4.362
Utility Improvement
Projects
! Keene Landfill Closure $0.475 00-04
General Govt. Summary
Revenues
General Fund Transfer ~12.754
Borrowed Funds $22.596
Courthouse Maintenance Funds $ 0.234
~nterest/carry-over $ 0.313
Misc. Reimbursements (city, uva)$ 1.014
Total Revenue $36.9111
Ivy Road Bike Lanes $0.232 02
Rivanna Greenway $0.150 00-04
River Access $0.064 00/04
Total $0.446
2
Stormwater Projects
! Master Drainage Prog. $0.060 01
! Drainage/Erosion $0.050 01
Total $0.110
Requested Projects $44.696
Funded proiects * $44.696
Shortfall $0
*Based on transfer of local revenues from
maintenance/replacement to debt service
School Fund Summary mm =~
5ct'x~Projects $3.~36 $12.648 $9.4~3 ~.4~4 $10~ ~.~
~ ~ $11.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~ ~.~
T~ ~ ~.~ 51Z~ ~.~ ~.~ $10~ ~.~
Proposed New/Expanded~
School Facilities
Brownsville addition
Burley LibraryAdd./Renovation
Hollymead gym/restrms
3ouett Addition/Renovation
Monticello H$ addition
Northern Elementary
Scottsville Library Addition
Southern Urban Elementary
WAHS renovations
Walton Addition
Total
$1.210 02-03
$6.80O OO-02
$0.857 03-04
$2.615 O2-O3
$0.330 04
$10.815 00-01
$0.075 04
$8.935 O2-04
$0.502 O0
$0.606 03-04
$32.745
School Renovation
Project~ ~ ~,
I AHS restoration $0.649 02
I CATEC cosmetology lab $0.038 00
I Crozet kitchen $0.065 02
I Henley renovation $0.200 04
I Murray High renovations $0,864 02
I WAHS window replace $0.230 04
Total $2.646
Mis~.~hooI Projects ~,
ADA structural changes $0.245 00/04
Maintenance/Replacement $6.509 00-04
Northern Elem,Recreation $0.500 00-01
Southern Elem, Recreation $0,335 04
Administrative Technology $0.330 00-04
Znstructional Technology $1.985 00-04
Total $9.904
3
Debt Service Ratios
tl.0% j t0.0% t0.0%
~o.o% ]
8.°%t ~
8.0% 1 8.8% ' 8.6%
10.0%
,v.~ ,'o 10.4%
FYgg FYO0 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04
[-4-Proposed -- Polic]f]
David P. Bowerman
Charlotte Y. Hurnphr~
Forrest R. Mmsh~ Jr.
COUN'~ OF ^~ REMA~ _R
office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlotteswille, V'm~nia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800
Chm'les S. Martin
Walter E Perkins
Sally H. Thomas
February19,1999
Mr. Bruce Kirtley
Rt. 1', Box 406
Crozet, VA 22932
At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on February 17, 1999, you were reappointed to
the Piedmont Housing Alliance, with said term to begin on January 2, 1999 and expire on
December 2, 2002. I have enclosed the Alliance's updated roster for your convenience.
On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this oppommity to express the Board's
appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity.
Sincerely,
Charles S. Martin
Chairman
CSM/lbh
Enclosure
cc: James L. Camblos, III
Lan'y Davis
Stu Armstrong
Printed on recycled paper
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Members of the Board of Supervisors
Laurie Hall, Senior Deputy Clerk ~
February 12, 1999
Vacancies on Boards and Commissions - UPDATED
I have attached the updated list of vacancies on boards and commissions through
April 31, 1999. Unless you indicate that you would either like to reappoint the same person, if
eligible, or select your own magesterial appointment without advertising, these vacancies will be
advertised in the Daily Progress on February 14 and 21. Applications for new vacancies, which
will then be due no later than March 22, will be forwarded to you at the Board meeting on
April 7, 1999.
cc: Bob Tucker
Larry Davis
· WISH TO BE MAGISTERIAL
NEW TERM RE- APPOLNTMENT
BOARD OR COMMISSION , MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED?
(Applications previously sent under C. Timothy Linds~rom 12-13-98 12-13-01 No
separate cover.)
Patricia H. Ewers 12-31-99 Resigned
The PHA Nominating Committee has Bruce W. Kirtley 01-01-99 01-01-02 Yes
recommended his reappointmcnt as
the Board's appointee; please
reappoint him.
Members, Board of Supervisors
Ella Washington Carey, CMC, Cle~
Reading List for February 17, 1999
February II, 1999
March 18(A), 1996
March 18. 1998
August 5, t998
Ms. Humphris
Ms. Thomas
Ms. Thomas
tewc