Annual Report/ Winter 2001/2002
Summary of Department Activities
Summary of Building Permits
Special Use Permits
Rezonings
Board of Zoning Appeals
Subdivisions
Capital
ImprovementsRiner gets an extension on their fire station; Shawsville and Elliston, a new high school; and the county administration, an e-government website and a geographic information system (GIS). Who makes these spending decisions; how are they made; and how do we pay for them? The answers lie in the County’s capital improvements program (CIP). We all create capital improvement programs when we buy an existing house and start planning the changes and additions we would like to make over a period of years. We may decide to landscape the front yard next summer, build a garage in three years, and add an addition in five years. The changes and additions we make require both planning and budgeting. As the name implies, the CIP deals solely with county expenditures directly related to public facilities (structures, parks, technology, equipment). According to the county’s definition, a capital project is one that has a minimum life span of five years, costs more than $50,000, and is neither maintenance related nor a fleet vehicle). The CIP allows the Montgomery County to track the distribution of public resources, address issues surrounding the equitable distribution of public facilities, and guide growth and change by anticipating future needs. Departments provide grant applications for the facilities they believe are needed over the next five years; the technical review committee evaluates these grants based on a set criteria and makes a recommendation to the Montgomery County Planning Commission. The Planning Commission, in turn, makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. In addition to the planning process, the CIP includes an extensive budgeting process. Each year, Montgomery County produces two budgets: the general operating budget and the capital budget. The capital budget includes the specific plans for the next fiscal year’s capital improvements, a five year plan for future improvements, and a fiscal plan which details how the county intends on securing the funds for the capital improvements and servicing the required debt. Copies of both budgets can be viewed on the Montgomery County website (www.montva.com) or obtained from the County’s Finance Department.
Each department or area of service in the Montgomery County government assesses their own needs. For example, Parks and Recreation looks at their current facilities and may decide they need to expand the number of parks in the county. Facility decisions are based on levels of service (LOS) standards, on perceived needs, or, in some cases, on additional requirements imposed by state or federal level regulations: eg., bringing a facility up to Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and requirements. Generally, CIP projects fall into four categories: 1) improvements of government facilities (i.e. school improvements, such as the installation of HVAC systems or upgrading Mid-County Park to make it ADA compliant; 2) construction of new government facilities (i.e. the new government center, a new solid waste collection center, or design and construction of a new park); 3) large scale, technology based projects (i.e. the e-government website or the county’s GIS); 4) fire and rescue equipment and vehicles. In general, fleet vehicles (including school buses) and water and sewer projects are outside of the scope of the CIP. Projects, at a minimum, must cost more than $50,000, and must have a minimum useful life of 5 years. Maintenance costs have been shifted from the CIP budget to the Operating Budget, so costs related to maintenance and operations are no longer part of the CIP; however, when departments apply for CIP funds, they must account for the project’s impact on the Operations budget, including the costs of maintenance and personnel.
For departments, there is a fine line between maintenance and upgrade. While the CIP process does not allow for maintenance costs to be included in CIP requests,, upgrade costs may be included. This is especially true when the needed upgrade is connected to either external regulations (adding ramps in order to bring a building into compliance with the ADA) or when a new aspect is being added to an existing facility (a new structure in an existing park). In addition, departments can not group projects. For example, if a department needs three identical items, which individually cost less than $50,000, they can not combine the items in a single request in order to meet the cost threshold. Again, under the county guidelines for the CIP, items costing less than $50,000 should be included in the operating budget. The exception to this rule is when a project initially requires multiple parts in order to work. For example, in creating the Montgomery County e-government project, the county not only had to have the site designed and programmed, but they also needed to buy additional software and hardware in order for the web project to fully function. Once a department has established a list of needs, they must fill out a CIP grant application. The application requires detailed information, including a project description, a statement of need or justification, a project impact statement, a timeline, a proposed budget, and a operation cost impact budget. The grants are delivered to the Planning Department, and from there they go through the technical review process, the budgeting process, and finally, the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
The Montgomery County CIP technical review committee is made up of the Director of Planning, the Director of Finance, the County Engineer, the Montgomery County Public Schools’ Facilities Director, and a representative from Fire and Rescue. In addition, the committee is staffed by one of the county planners and by the county’s program analyst. The the committee is designed to achieve the most thorough review of the proposed projects possible by relying on the expertise of the members. Prior to scoring and ranking the individual projects, the technical review committee examines each project and listens to presentations by the individual departments. The presentations give the departments a chance to make a stronger case for their proposed projects and provides the technical review committee a chance to ask question about issues that may not have been addressed in the initial proposal. The committee uses a numeric scoring method to insure that each project is thoroughly reviewed during the ranking process. First, under the state guidelines, all capital improvement projects must be in compliance with the Montgomery County Comprehensive Plan. This means that the proposed project must do two things: 1) match with the goals, objectives, or strategies specifically stated in the comprehensive plan; and 2) fit with the landuse designation (Urban, Rural, Urban Expansion, Rural Expansion) on the comprehensive plan map. A few projects, like the county’s GIS, are exempt from the map portion of the requirement because their construction and implementation do not directly impact their physical surroundings or change existing landuse. In addition to the state mandated comprehensive plan requirement, the technical review committee also looks at nine other key features: 1) public health or safety; 2) urgent need; 3) positive or negative impact on the operating budget; 4) fulfilling a legal requirement; 5) environmental impact; 6) project’s readiness; 7) impact on economic development and increased private capital investment; 8) percentage of the population served; 9) availability of financing, including outside revenue sources; 10) life expectancy of the project; 11) departmental priority. A total of 87 points are possible, although most projects, thus far, have scored between 30 and 60 points. The committee ranks the projects based on their scores, information garnered from presentations and additional information packets provided by the individual departments, and any information available concerning the urgency and readiness of the project to proceed. Projects which rank between 1 and 31 are included on the list of “fundable projects;” those scoring above 16 are considered the most critical and are more likely to receive specific funding during the course of the five year CIP cycle.
When the county develops a proposed financing plan for the CIP, they consider three primary factors: 1) whether the plan complies with the thresholds set forth in the county’s financial policies; 2) whether they can accommodate the top sixteen (16) projects, identified as urgent, within the five year CIP time frame; and 3) the impact of prior authorized commitments (for example, school roof projects). Project ranked below 16 and/or were determined to be outside of the county’s current Financing Plan were designated as “future projects.” While they were added to the list of potential capital improvements, they received no specific funding during the five year funding cycle, although funding may be granted at a future date. Montgomery County uses a variety of methods to pay for capital improvements, including: the issuance of new bonds, the earmarking of existing bond proceeds (1999 C Bonds), transferring of monies from the General Fund, and use of surplus funds from prior years. Regardless of the method of funding chosen, decisions on capital expenditures are made following a careful determination of the county’s debt capacity and ratio and the cost of debt service. Additional information on the budgeting process and debt management are included in the annual capital budget.
In December, 2000, the Planning Department submitted a proposed work program that focused on eleven projects and programs: 1) update and implementation of the 1999 Zoning Ordinance; 2) redistricting; 3) comprehensive plan review and amendment; 4) Coal Mining Heritage Park; 5) planning department web presence; 6) Capital Improvements Program (CIP); 7) establishing County GIS system; 8) review of 15.2.2232 requirements; 9) ongoing support of the erosion and sediment control program; 10) review of agricultural and forestal districts; and 11) the Roanoke River Corridor flood plain mitigation plan & community rating system. On the whole, significant progress was made on the major projects identified in the 2001 work program.
1999 Zoning Ordinance--2001 saw changes in the 1999 Zoning Ordinance, including additions to the list of special uses allowed in A-1 and standardization of lot requirements in all of the zoning districts, as well as other policy changes.
Redistricting. Montgomery County’s population grew by 13.1%, from 73, 913 in 1990 to 83,629 in 2000. The increase in population necessitated the redrawing of voting district boundaries. In addition, the redistricting process is legally mandated and follows an established framework. In April, the Board of Supervisors, following a public hearing, adopted the Redistricting Committee’s recommendations. The approved redistricting plan and supporting documentation was submitted to the Justice Department at the end of April, which they approved in June.
Comprehensive Plan Review and Amendment. The Comprehensive Plan is undergoing a major revision, including evaluating the connection between the Comprehensive Plan, the Capital Improvements Program, and the possible adoption of a cash proffer system. In March, the Planning Department and the Montgomery County Planning Commission held a series of community meetings in each of the four comprehensive planning areas (Mt. Tabor, Prices Fork, Riner, and Shawsville) to ask residents what they liked and disliked about the county, as well as what they saw as the major problems or issues facing the county. The results of the meetings were presented in May and provided county staff with a starting point for the revision of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, after a RFP and interview process, the County hired consultants, Herd Planning and Design, to help guide the development of the new Comprehensive Plan and to work on a number of background reports, including looking at ways of preserving open space and agricultural lands in the county.
Coal Mining Heritage Park. The majority of the work at CMHP fell under two categories: scientific and engineering studies, and student projects. During September, October, and November, Radford University freshmen volunteered time on weekends as part of the University’s community service requirements. The students, with help from members of the Coal Mining Heritage Association, put in benches, built the Hoist House Trail, planted perennials in the park gardens, worked on the invasive plants eradication program, cleaned up deadfalls on the upper slopes, and picked up garbage. Their work was invaluable and was greatly appreciated. In addition to the onsite work in the park, staff from the Planning Department and the Montgomery County Schools began the process of establishing a GLOBE program for the park property which will make use of the geotechnical and geohydrology studies already completed for the park.
Planning Department Website: After some fits and starts, the Planning Department website finally went live in December, and includes all of the applicable ordinances and long range plans, as well as special reports, Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals materials, and supporting documents for the broad range of activities in which the Planning Department is involved. In addition, the website will function as one of the primary community outreach resources for the comprehensive planning process, both by acting as an information clearinghouse and as a community involvement tool.
County GIS. In the past year, the department hired a full-time GIS manager (who will starts on April 1, 2002), has acquired some of the needed equipment and software for designing and implementing the GIS system, and participating in both training for ESRI software packages and for the County’s new GPS unit. In addition, the GIS staff worked with Blacksburg and other jurisdictions to arrange new aerial photographs to be taken during the spring, 2002.
15.2.2232 Review. In December, the Planning Commission and staff performed a 2232 Review of the Round Meadow Country Club proposal. Subsequently, the Planning Commission determined that they did not have enough information on which to base a decision and sent the proposal to the Board without a recommendation.
Erosion and Sediment Control (E and S). Throughout 2001, the Planning Department continued to offer technical assistance, in the form of an E ans S inspector, to the County Engineer, who administers the E and S program.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts. During July, the AFD Advisory Committee held a field review and made recommendations concerning the renewal of AFD-6 (south of Shawsville). Public hearings on the renewal were scheduled for September for both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors . The renewal was approved in October.
Other Major Projects not included in the 2001 Work Program: In addition to the projects listed in the original work program, the Planning Department and the Planning Commission tackled a number of other major projects during the course of the year, including the Route 177 Corridor Study Update, a study of telecommunications towers, and the North Fork-Catawba TEA-21 Project.
2002 Work Program This year’s work program includes an increased emphasis on the Comprehensive Plan Review and Revision, which involves supportingthe work of both the Planning Commission and the planning consultants, developing the plan elements, and continuing the department’s educational outreach program, including the continued development of the web. Work will also continue on the Coal Miners Heritage Park, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, the North Fork-Catawba Corridor Project and the CDBG grants (if successful), Participation in the Virginia Base Mapping Program, and continued development of the County’s GIS. In addition, the department will be involved in a number of ongoing projects, including the administration of the zoning ordinance, the CIP, and 15.2.2232 reviews.
Other Departmental Changes The year ended with the department packed in boxes, awaiting a move to the new Government Center (755 Roanoke Street, Suite 2A).
