Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2014-2-05
Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E FEBRUARY 5, 2014 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 9:00 A.M. – AUDITORIUM 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members. 6. Recognitions: a. Ann Mallek – Past Chair. b. Proclamation recognizing The Senior Center. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 9:45 a.m. - Discussion/Action Items: 9. Consideration of a Public Hearing on the Route 29 Western Bypass, Lee Catlin, Assistant to the County Executive for Community and Business Partnerships. 10. Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4th and Preston, Ron White, Director of Housing. 11. Video streaming Board of Supervisors Meetings, Lee Catlin. 12. Water Quality Mandates Community Engagement Plan, Lee Catlin. 13. Community Development Work Program, Mark Graham, Director of Community Development. 14. 12:00 noon - Closed Meeting. 15. Certify Closed Meeting. 16. 1:30 p.m. - Boards and Commissions: Vacancies/Appointments. 17. Public Hearing: FY2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations, Lori Allshouse, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. 1:45 p.m. - Presentations: 18. Department of Social Services Advisory Board Annual Report, Janet Morrow, Chair. 19. Virginia Pre-School Initiative “Bright Stars” Annual Report, John Freeman, Department of Social Services. 20. 2:15 p.m. - Quarterly Capital Report, Trevor Henry, Director of Office of Facilities Development. 21. 2:45 p.m. - Discussion: Fire Rescue Service Delivery System. 22. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 23. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0205/0.0_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/6/2020 8:26:17 AM] Tentative 24. Adjourn to February 12, 2014, 4:00 p.m. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 8.1 Approval of Minutes: August 14(A) and November 14(A), 2013. 8.2 Employee Pay Process Review. 8.3 Resolution of Reaffirmation of Support for the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership. 8.4 SDP-201-300058. Rolkin Road Retail Center – Special Exception. FOR INFORMATION: 8.5 FY 2014 Second Quarter Proffer Report. 8.6 FY 14 General Fund Q2 Report; Revised FY 14 Revenue Projections Report; and Quarterly Economic Indicators Report. 8.7 Records Retention of Potential Historic Documents. 8.8 County Grant Application Report. 8.9 February 2013 VDOT Charlottesville Residency Monthly Report for Albemarle County. 8.10 Performance Bonds for Development. 8.11 Board-to-Board, February, 2014 Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board Chairman. CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2014Files/0205/0.0_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/6/2020 8:26:17 AM] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Performance Bonds for Development SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review existing County policies and procedures for performance bonds with development projects STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Brooks, and McCulley PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Over the last year, individual Board members have requested information regarding the County’s program for performance bonds associated with development projects. This executive summary provides an overview of the program. As required by the Subdivision, Water Protection, and Zoning Ordinances, Community Development manages performance bonds that ensure that necessary improvements with development projects can be completed by the County if the developer fails to do so. State law does not mandate that localities use performance bonds, nor does the State require localities to complete the improvements if the developer fails to do so. State law enables localities to require that required improvements be bonded in order to ensure that public health, safety and welfare can be protected as a result of development activities. The most common of these performance bonds are associated with subdivisions and water protection. Subdivision bonds are used to ensure that purchasers of the lots will have the improvements required by the County’s Subdivision Ordinance. These improvements include roads and sidewalks, water and sewer, storm sewers or culverts, and required amenities such as trails or recreational facilities. Water protection bonds primarily ensure that erosion and sediment control measures and stormwater management facilities and non-structured best management practices will be properly installed, operated, and maintained. Somewhat different than the subdivision bond, these performance bonds are intended to protect others from impacts associated with development, such as limiting the amount of sediment that can flow downstream as a result of construction. The Zoning Ordinance contains provisions to ensure improvements are installed, including site improvements required in conjunction with a site plan not completed at the time of a certificate of occupancy, and conditions of zoning, such as proffers, special use permit conditions, and variances approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Community Development typically manages around 400 bonds with a total value in the range of $50 Million to $70 Million (379 bonds valued at $63.8 Million as of January 22nd). The number and value of the bonds held by the County continuously fluctuates as new projects are bonded and bonds are released for projects with completed improvements. In recent years, approximately 80-100 new bonds have been accepted, with a slightly larger number of bonds released. The number of bonds released has been larger in recent years because of a renewed effort to encourage developers to complete projects and improving market conditions. Projects often have multiple bonds. For example, a new subdivision will typically have a subdivision bond for the improvements and a water protection bond for the erosion and sediment control and stormwater management, but it also may have a proffer bond. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: The focus for this discussion is the Subdivision and Water Protection Ordinance bonds, as those constitute about 80% of the performance bonds held by the County and 90% of the value of those bonds. There are five phases of the bond program that will be discussed: 1) bond acceptance, 2) inspections and bond reduction, 3) bond renewal, 4) bond release, and 4) bond demand. Bond Acceptance At the time a plan or plat is tentatively approved, the property owner (developer) is informed when there is a need to bond the project based on the ordinance requirements. The developer then notifies the County of its interest in AGENDA TITLE: Performance Bonds for Development February 5, 2014 Page 2 moving forward and the type of bond they wish to use. Generally, there are three types of bonds the County accepts: 1) Cash or Certified Check, 2) a Letter of Credit, or 3) a Surety from a Virginia approved institution. Based on the type of bond being pursued, staff will then develop a bond agreement. The bond agreement has two major components: 1) The terms and conditions of the bond agreement, which specifies the responsibilities and rights for both the County and property owner under the bond, and 2) the bond amount, which reflects the anticipated cost of the improvements. Community Development staff first calculates the bond amount based on the improvements shown on the approved plan and drafts the agreement based on the type of bond being used. Once the developer signs the agreement, it is then reviewed and approved by the County Attorney to ensure the County’s interest in the agreement is protected. Finally, Community Development staff, usually the County Engineer or Zoning Administrator, signs the agreement on behalf of the County. It is noted the Subdivision Ordinance assumes the developer will complete the improvements prior to recording the subdivision plat, but allows the developer to post a subdivision bond in lieu of first completing the improvements. Inspection and Bond Reduction Prior to 2008, Community Development had 2 full time staff to inspect work and manage bonds. In 2008, those positions were eliminated and inspection of public roads was transferred to VDOT. However, shortly after this time, VDOT also stopped regular inspection of subdivision improvements, and the program evolved to one that relies on certification and documentation provided when a bond reduction or release is requested. Bond reductions (“partial release”) are a requirement under State law as construction of bonded improvements progresses. W hen the developer requests a bond reduction, the County has 30 days to respond by either approving the reduction request or disallowing the request and noting the deficiencies. If the County does not respond within 30 days after a request, the request is considered approved and the bond reduction must be made. Community Development prioritizes these requests to ensure a response within 30 days, but this is proving increasingly challenging as workload increases and restricts other work initiatives. Bond Renewal The bond agreements include a schedule for completion of improvements and an expiration date based on when the improvements are to be completed pursuant to this schedule. Given market conditions over the last five years, few subdivisions have completed the improvements within this time. When the expiration date approaches, a decision must be made to extend the agreement (renewal) or to make a demand on the bond by declaring the developer to be in default of the bond agreement and the County complete the improvements. In making this evaluation, staff determines whether an extension would be in the interest of assuring public health, safety and welfare, while recognizing a bond demand can reduce property values and create hardships for current property owners. Additionally, as part of its consideration as to whether to allow a bond to be renewed, staff evaluates how construction costs may have changed since the bond’s origination, and it is common for bond amounts to increase with a bond renewal. The consideration of bond renewals and increased bond amounts frequently puts staff in a contentious position with developers. Bond Release When bonded improvements are completed and a developer requests that the bond be released, State law requires that the County respond to the request within 30 days. For most subdivisions, this is managed by noting when VDOT has accepted the streets for State maintenance and the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) has indicated the water and sewer system are accepted. Remaining improvements are inspected and it is determined whether they are complete or deficiencies are noted. Staff has been diligently working to reduce the number of outstanding bonds, but there remain a significant number of old projects with bonds that cannot be released because the improvements have not been completed, primarily because of few lot sales. Currently, there are still more than 25 subdivision bonds that are 10 years or older and 7 water protection bonds that are 10 years or older. Following release, Virginia’s records retention requirements requires that the bond files are to be held for five years and then destroyed. Community Development performs an annual purge of records to assure compliance with this requirement. Bond Demand On rare occasions, either through a developer’s failure to comply with the conditions of the bond agreement or through an inability by the developer to obtain a bond renewal, the County places a demand for the bond by declaring the developer to be in default of the bond agreement. This is often termed “called” and used similar to when people speak of a loan being called. If the bond is a cash bond or a letter of credit, the County seldom has much difficulty in obtaining the bond funds. However, if a surety bond has been used with the bond agreement, it can be a difficult and time consuming process for the County to obtain the funds. This is largely because the agreement provides the AGENDA TITLE: Performance Bonds for Development February 5, 2014 Page 3 surety the opportunity to complete the improvements themselves in lieu of providing the funds to the County, and the surety often sees little advantage in quickly responding. To illustrate, there are currently two projects where the surety has decided to complete the improvements, and in both cases more than a year passed from the date the County made its demand until the surety began work on the projects. BUDGET IMPACT: This report is for information and no changes to current funding are requested. RECOMMENDATIONS: No action is requested. After reviewing this report, if the Board is interested in clarifications or discussions related to the County’s performance bond program, staff can schedule a work session to provide in-depth explanations. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Board-to-Board February, 2014 A monthly report from the Albemarle County School Board to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Election of Officers--The School Board elected new officers at its first meeting of 2014. Ned Gallaway, who served as Vice-Chair last year, will lead the Board as Chair, while Barbara Massie Mouly, member since 2004, will serve as Vice-Chair. Superintendent’s Funding Request--Dr. Pamela Moran presented her needs-based funding request for the 2014-2015 school year to the School Board on January 16. State mandates, board-directed compensation increases to maintain market competiveness and student enrollment growth will require $7.64 million in additional expenditures, which exceed the projected funding gap of $6.98 million in the request. The gap largely is based upon projected expenditure increases of six percent while revenues are estimated to increase by just over one percent. The Board has begun its detailed review of the funding request, which will follow its January 30th public hearing. MESA Program Wins State Award--The Math, Engineering, and Science Academy was honored by the Virginia Mathematics and Science Coalition in January. MESA was selected as one of the 2014 “Programs That Work”, which recognizes innovative, exemplary programs that have proven effective and that demonstrate important science concepts, skills, and processes. An exhibition of the winners at the Virginia General Assembly building was followed with a reception attended by legislators and state education officials, including Albemarle representative Delegate Steve Landes, who chairs the House Education Committee and is vice-chair of House Appropriations. Robotics Competition-- Teams from each of the comprehensive high schools participated in the First Tech Challenge Robotics Competition at the University of Virginia on January 11 against students from across the Shenandoah region. Teams from Albemarle and Western Albemarle qualified for the state competition to be held in Richmond later this year. Composite Index—Delegate Rob Bell has re-introduced a budget amendment to revise Albemarle County’s composite index calculation, taking into account the county’s revenue sharing agreement with the City. If it is approved, the change could net the county as much as $2.9 million in additional state aid. Steve Koleszar has visited Richmond to support the amendment. We will know next month whether the amendment will be included in the House’s budget bill. ACPS Graduates Receive Outstanding Faculty Award—The State Council of Higher Education for Virginia (SCHEV) and Dominion Resources named two Albemarle High School graduates as recipients of their 2014 Outstanding Faculty Award. Mrs. Allison Orr Larsen of the College of William and Mary and Dr. Jeffrey McClurken of the University of Mary Washington were recognized for excellence in teaching, research, knowledge integration, and public service with the award. Meriwether Lewis Principal Search— The search process for a new principal at Meriwether Lewis Elementary School is underway and members of the Meriwether Lewis school community will have the opportunity to offer input during the process. Karen Marcus, who has previously served as principal at the division’s Woodbrook and Crozet elementary schools, has been appointed as the acting principal at Meriwether Lewis during the search. The search committee’s objective is to have a new principal in place prior to the end of the current school year. Agnor-Hurt Renovation—The School Board approved the design for the Agnor-Hurt Elementary School Addition/Renovation project. The construction project will now go out to bid with an award made in time for the work to begin in June. The addition will eliminate overcapacity at the school by adding 132 seats. In keeping with the emphasis of the division’s strategic plan on 21st century learning environments, the addition will include a core instruction pavilion for multi-age instruction including the sciences, interactive communications and literacy curriculum, mathematics work, and project based learning. The addition will provide flexibility for teachers to tailor the learning to the different capabilities of learners and content/curriculum interactions. Site improvements also will include additional parking and building security and a separate entrance and drop-off area for buses. The new space will open for students with the 2015-2016 school year. School Board website: www.k12albemarle.org COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Employee Pay Process Review SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of appropriation to fund a review of the County’s pay process system STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Davis, Letteri, and Burrell PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The County implemented its Human Resource/Payroll (HRP) module of the Access Albemarle (AA) Project in April, 2012. In spite of our best planning efforts to align the software with our processes, the actual implementation of the Access Albemarle software system has revealed instances of process misalignment, or in some cases, opportunities to modify our current processes to achieve greater accuracy and to further leverage the use of these very sophisticated tools. The County’s history of the number of employee overpayments and underpayments could be deemed relatively minor in the context of the number of employees who are paid each month and the complexity of the compensation transactions processed. However, these errors have had a real impact on employees and have resulted in additional cost to the County. Several overpayment or underpayment mistakes have occurred over the last five years which may have been avoided with improved systems. The purpose of this Executive Summary is to provide information to the Board to support staff’s request for an appropriation to fund a consultant to review the County’s pay process system. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 7: Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service. DISCUSSION: The County has a complex pay process system that serves Local Government and School employees, including many complicated schedules and data inputs. There have been a number of problems with our employee pay processes that have become more apparent since the County started using the new HRP system. The lack of an automated time and attendance system and the reliance upon a decentralized, paper-based system of tracking employees’ time and attendance is problematic. Staff believes - given that we are now operating the new software - that we should immediately undertake a comprehensive review of the pay process system to identify necessary process improvements. Because of the complexity of handling pay processes for both local government and the schools and the critical importance of accurately handling employee pay, staff proposes that a consultant be engaged to identify pay process weaknesses and to make recommendations for improvements to the County’s pay processes. Based on discussions with firms with expertise in the area of process improvements with governmental experience, the estimated cost of the desired services is approximately $60,000. BUDGET IMPACT: A supplemental appropriation of $60,000 is necessary to fund a consultant to undertake the review of the pay process system in this fiscal year. The funds are proposed to be appropriated from the Reserve for Contingencies Fund. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve Appropriation #2014079 on the February 5, 2014 FY14 Appropriation Request to fund the proposed review of the County’s pay process systems. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda RESOLUTION OF REAFFIRMATION OF SUPPORT for the JOURNEY THROUGH HALLOWED GROUND PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership (JTHG) is a non-profit organization dedicated to raising national and international awareness of the unparalleled history in the region from Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the JTHG has built a strong network of 350 local, regional, and national partnering organizations to develop a common vision to brand and enhance the scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, and natural resources of the region; and WHEREAS, the JTHG has collaboratively created a National Heritage Area as designated by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2008; and WHEREAS, the JTHG has successfully completed a Corridor Management Plan for the 180 mile long corridor generally following the Old Carolina Road and worked to have it designated as only the 99th road in the country to be recognized as a National Scenic Byway in 2009; and WHEREAS, the JTHG has created heritage tourism programs that provide economic development opportunities for each Partnering jurisdiction within The National Heritage Area to support our businesses and the quality of life for all citizens; and WHEREAS, the JTHG has developed award winning educational programs, including the Of the Student, By the Student, For the Student service learning project, to connect students and teachers with our shared heritage; and WHEREAS, the JTHG developed the “Living Legacy” project that commemorates the individual and combined sacrifices of the Civil War fallen by planting one tree for each of the 620,000 soldiers who died, as it beautifies the communities of Partnering jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors reaffirms its commitment to the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership and pledges its continued support for this collaborative Partnership. **** I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on ______________________. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda ROLKIN ROAD RETAIL CENTER – SPECIAL EXCEPTION FEBRUARY 5, 2014 BOS 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SDP2013-58. Rolkin Road Retail Center Special Exception SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for a Special Exception to allow the disturbance of critical slopes STAFF CONTACT(S): Benish, Ray, and Greene LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Rolkin Road Retail Center is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Rolkin and Abbey Roads, approximately 275’ south of the intersection of Rolkin Road and Route 250. This site is an outparcel of the larger commercial development, Pantops Shopping Center, which was rezoned to PD-MC (Planned Development Mixed Commercial) under ZMA199800020. The initial site plan includes a 10,510 square foot retail building with associated parking and travelway, and requires this special exception to develop as proposed . The applicant is requesting a special exception to disturb a small area of man-made critical slopes. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 3: Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy. Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: 1. CRITICAL SLOPES WAIVER The proposed development will require the disturbance of critical slopes . A special exception to allow critical slopes disturbance is necessary before the final site plan can be approved by staff. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver, and this request has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.1(a) of the Zoning Ordinance requires that the building site, and thus any improvements and earth-disturbing activity, be free from critical slopes. Section 4.2.5(b) allows this restriction to be waived when the slopes were created through development pursuant to an approved Site Plan . The critical slopes in the area of this request appear to be man-made and created pursuant to the road plans for adjacent roads. Though no site plan for this particular parcel has been previously submitted, site plans for the adjacent parcels show no critical slopes on this parcel prior to 2001. Critical slopes have been created since that time, likely with the construction of Hickman Road. Staff is recommending approval of the special exception. This recommendation for approval is based on staff’s assessment which finds that the proposed disturbance substantially meets the requirements listed in Section 4.2.5(b): Review of the request by Engineering staff: Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance: This is an infill lot for the Pantops Shopping Center. The adjacent site plans around the project show no critical slopes prior to 2001. Critical slopes have since been constructed, possibly with the construction of Hickman Road. Areas Acres Total site 1.67 acres approximately Critical slopes 0.25 15% of site Critical slopes disturbed 0.25 100% of critical slopes Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations: This disturbance is not exempt. ROLKIN ROAD RETAIL CENTER – SPECIAL EXCEPTION FEBRUARY 5, 2014 BOS 2 Compliance with Zoning Ordinance Section 18-4.2: “movement of soil and rock” Proper slope construction, control of drain age, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of soil. “excessive stormwater runoff” Stormwater runoff will be reduced in this area, as the slopes will be eliminated. “siltation” Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability. “loss of aesthetic resource” This area is visible from the roads and houses in the neighborhood. Some of the slopes were created with the roads. “septic effluent” This neighborhood is serviced by public sewer. Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of the critical slopes as shown. Review of the request by Planning staff: Each of the following four factors delineated in Zoning Ordinance Section 18-4.2.5(b) are satisfied: 1. The property is not identified in the open space plan as one having any protected resources and a field inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or critical features on the property identified for protection in the open space plan; 2. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of critical slopes; 3. The developer submitted and obtained approval from the program authority of an erosion and sediment control plan; and 4. The developer submitted and obtained approval from the County Engineer of a plan that describes how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff, siltation of natural and man-made bodies of water, the loss of aesthetic resources identified in the open space element of the comprehensive plan and, in the event of the failure of a treatment works and subsurface drainfield, a greater travel distance of septic effluent, will be mitigated through design, construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater management and other best management practices. Based on the County Engineer’s comments, staff finds that this request meets the criteria note d above. These slopes are not identified on the Open Space Plan and are man-made. There are no concerns that would cause staff to object to the approval of the proposed critical slope disturbance request. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the special exception to allow the critical slopes to be disturbed, as required. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2014 2nd Quarter Proffer Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Report on cash and non-cash proffer revenue and expenditures for October-December 2013 STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Walker, Letteri, Davis, Graham, McCulley, Higgins, Ragsdale, Allshouse L., and Harris PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly report on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, the report has been expanded to also include updates on non-cash proffers. The Board received the last quarterly proffer report on November 6, 2013, which included information on cash proffer revenue and expenditures and non-cash proffers for July through September, 2013. This report includes all proffer activity (both cash and non-cash) for the second quarter of FY 2014 (October-December). The next quarterly report will be on the Board’s May 7, 2014 agenda. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 2. Provide community facilities that meet existing and future needs. DISCUSSION: Proffer Activity for Fiscal Year 2014 Second Quarter (October-December) A. New Proffered Revenue: Several rezoning requests were approved this quarter that provided new cash proffers, including Riverside Village, Out of Bounds, and The Lofts at Meadow Creek. An amendment to Avon Park II was approved that increased the anticipated cash proffer revenue from that development. In addition, the cash option for affordable housing has been elected for Grayrock West and Estes Park , which will increase the amount of cash proffers for those developments. Together, these changes result in an increase in Total Proffered Revenue of $1,131,771.99, as follows: DEVELOPMENT AMOUNT PURPOSE Grayrock West $41,745.25 Affordable Housing/CIP Estes Park $218,812.75 Affordable Housing Riverside $265,981.00 Park Master Plan/CIP Out of Bounds $528,700.84 CIP The Lofts at Meadow Creek $61,000.00 Sidewalk/CIP Avon Park II (amended) $15,532.05 CIP TOTAL $1,131,771.89 Although not proffer funds, the County received $6,000 for affordable housing programs from a special use permit condition for Kenridge (SP 2012-13). B. Total Proffered Revenue: Total proffered revenue is $46,136,985.90. This reflects 2013 annual adjustments to anticipated proffer revenue (not received yet obligated) from proffers in which annual adjustments were proffered and the increase in new proffered revenue described above. C. 2nd Quarter Cash Revenue: The County received a total of $218,489.81 from existing cash proffers during this quarter from the following developments: AGENDA TITLE: FY 2014 2nd Quarter Proffer Report February 5, 2014 Page 2 DEVELOPMENT TOTAL INTENDED PURPOSE Willow Glen $27,827.42 CIP Haden Place $3,200.00 CIP-Crozet Livengood $61,384.02 CIP Livengood $7,995.00 Affordable Housing Belvedere $750.00 Affordable Housing Old Trail $8,000.00 Crozet Parks/Schools Liberty Hall $25,600.00 CIP-Crozet Leake $19,397.35 CIP Leake $2,952.00 Affordable Housing Grayrock West $61,384.02 CIP TOTAL $218,489.81 D. 1st Quarter Expenditures and Appropriations: There were no appropriations this quarter. Current Available Funds: As of December 31, 2013, the available proffered cash on-hand is $4,039,501.12 (including interest earnings on proffer revenue received). Some of these funds were proffered for specific projects while others may be used for general projects within the CIP. Of the available proffered cash on-hand, $1,972,324.22 (including interest earned), is currently appropriated (Attachment A). The net cash balance is $2,067,176.90. Attachment B provides information on how the net cash balance may be used for future CIP projects. BUDGET IMPACT: Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue to address impacts from development and they support the funding of important County projects which would otherwise be funded through general tax revenue. Using cash proffer funding for current or planned FY13–FY17 CIP projects builds capacity in the CIP by freeing up funding for other projects. In addition, non-cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise need to be funded by general tax revenue. The Community Development Department and Office of Management and Budget staff monitor proffer funds on an ongoing basis to ensure that associated projects not currently in the CIP move forward and to ensure that funding is appropriated to projects before any proffer deadlines. RECOMMENDATIONS: This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time. ATTACHMENTS: A-Summary of Cash Proffer Funds (updated through December 31, 2013) B-Net Available Cash Proffer Funds Summary and Use of Funds Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda UPDATE: 01/13/2014FUND # PROFFER NAME SORT 1TOTAL PROFFERED REVENUETOTAL FUNDS RECEIVEDTOTAL INTEREST EARNINGSTOTALEXPENDITURES(Transfer to Projects)CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSAPPROPRIATED FUNDSAPPROPRIATED INTEREST EARNINGSProjects/$REMAINING AVAILABLE FUNDSREMAINING AVAIBLE INTEREST EARNINGSNET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDSACTIVE8547 ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD 8547-ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD $2,610,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $423.34 $0.00 $1,500,423.34 $1,170,700.00 $0.00 Seminole Trail Vol. Fire. Dept. Ren/AddRio Library/Storage FacilityTransporation Revenue Sharing ProgramHydraulic Road and Barracks Road Sidewalks$329,300.00 $423.34 $329,723.348548AVINITY (CIP)8548-AVINITY (CIP)$1,439,982.05$569,786.66$143.05$0.00$569,929.71$0.00$0.00 $569,786.66$143.05$569,929.718548AVINITY (Affordable Housing)8548-AVINITY (Affordable Housing)$313,500.00$99,000.00$12.83$0.00$99,012.83$0.00$0.00 $99,000.00$12.83$99,012.838534AVON PARK8534-AVON PARK$59,000.00$59,000.00$5,756.13$0.00$64,756.13$59,000.00$5,596.33Avon Street Sidewalks$0.00$159.80$159.808536BELVEDERE STATION8536-BELVEDERE STATION$400,250.00$124,250.00$864.08($58,009.66)$67,104.42$30,000.00$0.00Orchard Acres Rehabilitation Project $37,000.00$104.42$37,104.428531ECKERD PHARMACY8531-ECKERD PHARMACY$6,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00 $0.00$0.00$0.008578ESTES PARK8578-ESTES PARK$1,405,542.73$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008520GLENMORE8520-GLENMORE$893,000.00$752,000.00$129,931.91($875,364.10)$6,567.81$0.00$0.00 $1,000.00$5,567.81$6,567.818521GLENMORE8521-GLENMORE$569,000.00$331,000.00$56,335.13($375,000.00)$12,335.13$0.00$0.00 $2,300.00$10,035.13$12,335.138523GRAYROCK8523-GRAYROCK$62,500.00$62,500.00$13,326.81($74,880.00)$946.81$0.00$0.00$0.00$946.81$946.818577GRAYROCK WEST8577-GRAYROCK WEST$192,340.71$61,384.02$0.00$0.00$61,384.02$0.00$0.00$61,384.02$0.00$61,384.028576HADEN PLACE8576-HADEN PLACE$0.00$19,900.00$0.00$0.00$19,900.00$0.00$0.00$19,900.00$0.00$19,900.008527HOLLYMEAD AREA C8527-HOLLYMEAD AREA C$210,000.00$169,523.75$5,222.94($112,442.36)$62,304.33$59,523.75$2,741.04Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$39.54$39.548528HOLLYMEAD AREA D8528-HOLLYMEAD AREA D$481,000.00$480,999.68$23,878.46($473,712.00)$31,166.14$20,085.18$11,061.19Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$19.77$19.778545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A18545-HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$609,000.00$109,000.00$614.51($28,506.62)$81,107.89$30,733.69$322.73Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$50,000.00$51.47$50,051.478572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP8572-LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$2,133,708.45$94,418.25$0.00$0.00$94,418.25$0.00$0.00$94,418.25$0.00$94,418.258573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing8573-LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$324,720.00$14,760.00$0.00$0.00$14,760.00$0.00$0.00$14,760.00$0.00$14,760.008544 LIBERTY HALL 8544-LIBERTY HALL $137,600.00 $134,400.00 $266.40($86,500.92)$48,165.48 $22,400.00 $130.49 Cory Farm Greenway Connector projectCrozet Streetscapes Phase II$25,499.08 $135.91 $25,634.998574LIVENGOOD (CIP)8574-LIVENGOOD (CIP)$879,837.59$222,245.95$0.00$0.00$222,245.95$0.00$0.00 $222,245.95$0.00$222,245.958574LIVENGOOD (Affordable Housing)8574-LIVENGOOD (Affordable Housing)$114,595.00$29,032.23$0.00$0.00$29,032.23$0.00$0.00 $29,032.23$0.00$29,032.238529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE8529-MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$346,250.00$419,144.85$10,613.61$0.00$429,758.46$359,144.85$10,358.15 $60,000.00$255.46$60,255.468538NORTH POINTE8538-NORTH POINTE$460,000.00$400,000.00$28,810.93($420,359.50)$8,451.43$0.00$8,451.43Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.00$0.008537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE8537-OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$2,328,000.00$174,000.00$1,910.67($99,870.73)$76,039.94$0.00$0.00Crozet Greenway$76,000.00$39.94$76,039.948546POPLAR GLEN II8546-POPLAR GLEN II$155,600.00$155,601.00$207.32($122,699.00)$33,109.32$0.00$0.00$32,924.81$184.51$33,109.328533STILLFRIED LANE8533-STILLFRIED LANE$78,000.00$78,000.00$6,358.40($84,341.07)$17.33$0.00$0.00($962.07)$979.40$17.338525UVA RESEARCH PARK8525-UVA RESEARCH PARK$78,178.00$78,718.00$899.80($79,500.00)$117.80$0.00$117.72Hollymead/Powell Sidewalk$0.00$0.08$0.088535WESTERN RIDGE8535-WESTERN RIDGE$5,000.00$5,159.12$857.46($6,016.58)$0.00$0.00$0.00($857.46)$857.46$0.008541WESTHALL (1.1)8541-WESTHALL (1.1)$90,000.00$91,000.00$2,886.93$0.00$93,886.93$51,000.00$2,728.70Crozet Streetscapes Phase II $40,000.00$158.23$40,158.238542 WESTHALL (1.2) 8542-WESTHALL (1.2) $30,000.00 $37,000.00 $935.83($7,000.00)$30,935.83 $23,000.00 $925.91 Cory Farm Greenway Connector projectCrozet Streetscapes Phase II $7,000.00 $9.92 $7,009.928543WESTHALL (3.3)8543-WESTHALL (3.3)$3,000.00$3,000.00$169.16$0.00$3,169.16$0.00$0.00 $3,000.00$169.16$3,169.168540 WICKHAM POND 8540-WICKHAM POND $345,161.67 $292,622.90 $4,186.49($183,197.80)$113,611.59 $101,505.99 $2,797.07 Cory Farm Greenway Connector projectCrozet Streetscapes Phase II$9,015.53 $293.00 $9,308.538549WICKHAM POND II8549-WICKHAM POND II$405,000.00$79,725.81$35.29$0.00$79,761.10$0.00$0.00$79,725.81$35.29$79,761.108575WILLOW GLEN8575-WILLOW GLEN$3,399,856.12$185,081.76$0.00$0.00$185,081.76$0.00$0.00$185,081.76$0.00$185,081.76FUTURE05th STREET AVON 30-5th STREET AVON 3$258,950.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0005th STREET AVON 40-5th STREET AVON 4$103,580.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.0005th STREET AVON 50-5th STREET AVON 5$103,580.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000AVON PARK II0-AVON PARK II$492,690.48$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000BARGAMIN PARK0-BARGAMIN PARK$18,200.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000BLUE RIDGE CO-HOUSING0-BLUE RIDGE CO-HOUSING$334,630.59$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000CASCADIA0-CASCADIA$405,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000FONTANA PHASE 4C0-FONTANA PHASE 4C$807,353.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A20-HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A2$17,505,318.75$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000NGIC EXPANSION0-NGIC EXPANSION$1,478,828.67$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000OAKLEIGH FARM0-OAKLEIGH FARM$1,539,043.47$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000OUT OF BOUNDS0-OUT OF BOUNDS$528,700.84$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000RIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE0-RIVANNA VILLAGE @ GLENMORE$1,224,172.69$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000RIVERSIDE VILLAGE0-RIVERSIDE VILLAGE$265,981.09$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.000THE LOFTS AT MEADOWCREEK0-THE LOFTS AT MEADOWCREEK$61,000.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00COMPLETED8530ALBEMARLE PLACE8530-ALBEMARLE PLACE$100,000.00$100,000.00$3,666.41($103,666.41)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008526AVEMORE8526-AVEMORE$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,286.43($51,286.43)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008539GREENBRIER8539-GREENBRIER$9,334.00$9,334.00$81.72($9,415.72)($0.00)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008532HOLLYMEAD AREA B8532-HOLLYMEAD AREA B$50,000.00$50,000.00$1,521.85($51,521.85)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008524SPRINGRIDGE8524-SPRINGRIDGE$100,000.00$100,000.00$2,214.97($102,214.97)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.008522STILL MEADOWS8522-STILL MEADOWS$135,000.00$135,000.00$17,220.78($152,220.78)$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00TOTAL$46,136,985.90$7,276,587.98$320,639.64($3,557,726.50)$4,039,501.12$1,927,093.46$45,230.76$1,972,324.22$2,046,554.57$20,622.33$2,067,176.90CASH PROFFERSAPPROPRIATED PROFFERS SUMMARYNET CASH PROFFERS FUND # PROFFER NAMENET CURRENT AVAILABLE FUNDS PROFFERED USE OF FUNDS RECOMMENDED/POTENTIAL USE OF FUNDS8547 ALBEMARLE PLACE-STONEFIELD $329,723.34 CIP-GeneralCIP-General FY13 New Library/Storage FacilityHydraulic Sidewalk8548 AVINITY (CIP) $569,929.71 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 5 CIP-Neighborhoods 4 & 58548 AVINITY (Affordable Housing) $99,012.83Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8534AVON PARK$159.80CIP-Neighborhoods 4-Pedestrian ImprovementsMust use for specific project8536BELVEDERE STATION$37,104.42Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8531ECKERD PHARMACY$0.00Rt. 250 Traffic SignalsRt. 250 Traffic Signals8578ESTES PARK$0.00CIP8520GLENMORE$6,567.81School CIP/Other CIP-GlenmoreSchool CIP/Other CIP-Glenmore8521GLENMORE$12,335.13CIP-250/Glenmore-TransportationRt. 250 Pedestrian Crossings or Shadwell Interchange8523GRAYROCK$946.81Interest/Jarmans Gap Road ImprovementsCIP-Crozet Project TBD8577GRAYROCK WEST$61,384.02CIPCIP-TBD8576HADEN PLACE$19,900.00CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBD8527HOLLYMEAD AREA C$39.54CIP-HollymeadCIP-Hollymead (TBD)8528HOLLYMEAD AREA D$19.77CIP Hollymead Transportation*CIP-Hollymead Transportation (TBD)8545HOLLYMEAD TOWN CENTER A1$50,051.47CIP-Hollymead-Greenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing OnlyGreenway connection/Pedestrian Crossing8572LEAKE (Glenmore) 3-CIP$94,418.25CIP-General8573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$14,760.00Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8573LEAKE (Glenmore) 4-Affordable Housing$14,760.00Affordable HousingAffordable Housing8544LIBERTY HALL $25,634.99CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project8574LIVENGOOD (CIP)$222,245.95CIP-General CIP-General-TBD8574LIVENGOOD (Affordable Housing)$29,032.23Affordable HousingAffordable Housing Project TBD8529MJH @ PETER JEFFERSON PLACE$60,255.46TransitTransit8537OLD TRAIL VILLAGE$76,039.94CIP-Crozet Parks/SchoolsCIP-Crozet (Parks/Schools TBD)8546POPLAR GLEN II$33,109.32CIP-Affordable HousingAffordable Housing Project TBD8533STILLFRIED LANE$17.33CIP-General or Affordable HousingProject TBD8541WESTHALL (1.1)$40,158.23Eastern Avenue in Crozet/After 10 years Crozet CIPCIP-Crozet (Transportation Projects)8542WESTHALL (1.2)$7,009.92CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project8543WESTHALL (3.3)$3,169.16Greenway bridge in WesthallMust use for specific project8540 WICKHAM POND $9,308.53 CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Greenway Project CIP-Crozet Project TBD8549WICKHAM POND II$79,761.10 CIP-CrozetCIP-Crozet Project TBD8575WILLOW GLEN$185,081.76 CIP-GeneralCIP-General TBDTOTAL$2,067,176.90 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 14 General Fund Q2 Report; Revised FY 14 Revenue Projections Report; and Quarterly Economic Indicators Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: FY 14 Q2 Financial Report October through December 2013; Revised Revenue and Expenditure Projections Report for FY 14; and Quarterly Economic Indicators Report STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Letteri, Davis, Allshouse, S., and Burrell PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The attached Quarterly Financial Report (Attachment A) provides information regarding the County’s FY 14 General Fund performance as of December 31, 2013. The Revised Financial Projections Report (Attachments B through D) includes projected General Fund revenues and expenditures for FY 14. The Quarterly Economic Indicator Report provides an overview of recent general economic conditions in the County. STRATEGIC PLAN: Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds. DISCUSSION: The Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) reflects year-to-date (YTD) data through December 31, 2013, the end of the second quarter of FY 14. The data in the attached QFR is organized in a way that is consistent with Exhibit 12 of the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Most line item titles in the QFR match the line item titles in the CAFR. The columns in the QFR show FY 14 Adopted Budget revenues and expenditures, Revised Budget revenues and expenditures, as well as YTD actual revenues and expenditures. Each of these YTD figures subsequently is expressed as a percentage of the amount in the relevant line item of the FY 14 Revised Budget. Additionally, the QFR includes corresponding data from FY 13 so that the current fiscal year’s financial data can be compared easily to that of the previous fiscal year. An important feature of this report is that data is provided for a point in time (December 31, 2013) and is compared to data from the same point in time for the prior fiscal year (December 31, 2012). Anomalies and similarities between fiscal years become readily apparent using this comparison method. The Revised Financial Projection Report (RFPR) provides a streamlined summary of forecasted revenues and expenditures. The columns of the table in the RFPR show FY 14 Adopted revenues and expenditures, Appropriated revenues and expenditures, and Revised revenue and expenditure projections. The last two columns of the table reveal the variances between revised projected revenues/expenditures and the corresponding Appropriated revenues/expenditures. These variances are expressed in dollar terms in the second-to-last column and are shown in percentage terms in the last column. The Quarterly Economic Indicators Report (QEIR) shows data about the state of the County’s economy. This information formerly was presented to the Board as part of Staff’s quarterly Economic Vitality Action Plan (EVAP) update. Staff presented the close-out EVAP update on September 4, 2013, at which time the Board indicated interest in continuing to see the County’s QEIR in conjunction with the County’s QFR and RFPR. The QEIR contains data taken from the most recently available quarter and compares this data with data from the same quarter of previous calendar years. AGENDA TITLE: FY 14 General Fund Q2 Report; Revised FY 14 Revenue Projections Report; and Quarterly Economic Indicators Report February 5, 2014 Page 2 Highlights of the attached reports include: Revenues – YTD Actual YTD total revenues in the second quarter of FY 14 totaled $99,789,998 compared to $99,040,015 in the second quarter of FY 13. In percentage terms, FY 14 YTD Actual revenues, as a percentage of FY 14 Revised Budget revenues, stood at 43.48% compared to 42.77% in FY 13. This result represents an essentially neutral trend for revenues. Revenue streams performed fairly consistently through the second quarter of FY 14 compared with the same quarter of FY 13. There were just four significant year-to-year variances in revenues. These three streams included Local Revenues: Charges for Services; Local Revenue: Miscellaneous; Intergovernmental: Contributions from Other Entities; and Intergovernmental: Revenue from Federal Government. The variance in Charges for Services is the result, primarily, of an increase in EMS billing. Miscellaneous revenue reflects a one-time payment to the County of $250,000 that was made to the County in FY 13. The variance in Contributions from Other Entities, as well as the variance in Revenue from the Federal Government, reflects the timing of when these transfers or payments were made in both fiscal years. For additional information about revenue variances, see the analysis page in the QFR. Expenditures – YTD Actual YTD total expenditures in the second quarter of FY 14 totaled $79,180,886 compared to $105,896,857 in the second quarter of FY 13. This significant variance is due principally to the fact that, in the first half of FY 14, there was a $25,883,007 transfer to the Schools Division whereas the corresponding amount in the first half of FY 13 was $50,053,149. Four other expenditure items had significant variances from the previous year. These items included Public Safety: Volunteer Fire; Human Development: Social Services; Education: Transfer to School CIP; and Transfers, Contingencies, and Refunds: Transfer Accounts. The variance in Volunteer Fire resulted largely from an increase in the leasing costs associated with buildings. The variance in Social Services expenditures reflects the timing of transfers to the CSA and Bright Stars funds. The Transfer to Schools CIP variance resulted primarily from the timing of the transfer, while the variance in the Transfer Accounts resulted from the timing of transfers to the General Fund CIP and the General Fund Debt Service, as well as a budgeted zero amount (and, therefore, zero transfer in FY 14) to Storm Drainage. For additional information about expenditure variances, please see the analysis page in the QFR. Year-end Projections The Revised Financial Projections Report indicates that, by June 30, 2014, estimated revenues will exceed appropriated revenues by roughly $1.433 million, whereas expenditures are projected to be approximately $0.651 million below the appropriated budget. This difference between appropriated expenditures and projected expenditures is due primarily to savings associated with salary lapse and insurance. Excess revenues and expenditures savings are projected to result in a net of $2.084 million additional fund balance by the end of FY 14. Please note that this projected $2.084 million in additional fund balance equals only 0.91% of the projected $228.864 million FY 14 expenditures and transfers; this small percentage “buffer” reflects an extremely tight budgetary environment. Quarterly Economic Indicators Albemarle County’s economy appears to be growing at a moderate pace. The unemployment rate continues to decline from recession highs, but is still above the estimated “natural” rate of unemployment. The total number of jobs in the County is at the highest Q2 level in the six years examined in this report, although it should be pointed out that Albemarle’s population is larger now than in 2008; the number of jobs per 1,000 residents might not have recovered to previous levels. General economic activity, as evidenced by sales, food & beverage, and TOT revenues, appears to be picking up, and likely will continue to grow at a healthy clip as new commercial space opens in the County. The residential real estate market continues to recover from the “Great Recession” and its aftermath. The non -residential real estate market, meanwhile, has seen substantial growth in new development in the past several years, although this growth has come in clusters, rather than coming evenly over time In addition to the attached reports, the Board has directed staff to provide a quarterly update of any FY 14 budget transfers administratively approved by the County Executive as authorized by the Board on August 1, 2012. AGENDA TITLE: FY 14 General Fund Q2 Report; Revised FY 14 Revenue Projections Report; and Quarterly Economic Indicators Report February 5, 2014 Page 3 During this quarter, the County Executive approved no administrative transfers. BUDGET IMPACT: Revenue and expenditure data contained in the QFR reflects the state of the County’s budget-to-actual FY 14 financial performance as of December 31, 2013. Year end projections contained in the RFPR are subject to change, based on the result of actual collections and expenditures through June 30, 2014. Data shown in the QEIR reflect economic variables that impact the County’s current and future revenues and expenditures. RECOMMENDATIONS: These reports are for information only. Staff welcomes the Board’s feedback regarding the content and presentation of these reports. ATTACHMENTS: A – Quarterly Financial Report B – General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report C – General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report Table D – General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report Endnotes E – Quarterly Economic Indicators Report Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Quarterly Financial Report – Q2 FY 14 Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 Introduction The Albemarle County Quarterly Financial Report (QFR) for the quarter ended December 31, 2013 displays general fund revenue and expenditure data using many of the same line item titles that are found in Exhibit 12 of the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The Quarterly Financial Report document consists of three parts: Analysis pages of YTD FY 12/13 revenues and expenditures that changed by more than 2% and that also experienced dollar changes of more than $200,000 between Q2 of FY 2012/13 and Q2 of FY 2013/14. A detailed table that shows (1) YTD actual dollar amounts of revenues and expenditures for FY 13/14 and FY 12/13; (2) budgeted dollar amounts of revenues and expenditures for FY 13/14 and FY 12/13; and (3) YTD actual revenues and expenditures as percentages of budgeted revenues and expenditures for FY 13/14 and FY 12/13. An examination of the percentages for both fiscal years reveals the rate at which YTD actual revenues and expenditures in the current fiscal year are approaching budgeted amounts, compared with the rate at which YTD actual revenues and expenditures in the prior fiscal year approached budgeted amounts. As an example of this comparison, the figure contained in Column D, Line No. 6 reveals that, in the second quarter of FY 13/14, the revenue that the County collected in Charges for Services was 46.88% of the budgeted amount while, as shown in Column H, Line No. 6, the revenue that Albemarle collected from this revenue source in the second quarter of FY 12/13 stood at 37.89% of the budgeted amount. Pie charts that show (1) the budgeted and actual percentage share of various revenue streams for FY 2013/14; and (2) the budgeted and actual percentage share of various expenditures for FY 2013/14. Page 1 of 8 Albemarle County Analysis of Significant Variances in General Fund Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 Revenues Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances Revenues – Local: Charges for Services. In FY 13/14, actual YTD revenue, as a percentage of FY 13/14 budget amount, equaled 46.9% vs. 37.9% in FY 12/13. Actual YTD revenue came to $1,464,310 vs. $1,021,943 in FY 12/13. This variance reflects primarily an increase in EMS billing. Revenues – Local: Miscellaneous. In FY 13/14, actual YTD revenue, as a percentage of FY 13/14 budget amount, came to 62.3% vs. 89.6% in FY 12/13. Actual YTD revenue came to $94,917 vs. $345,739 in FY 12/13. This variance results from a one-time payment to the County in FY 12/13. Revenues – Intergovernmental: Contributions from Other Entities. In FY 13/14, actual YTD revenue, as a percentage of FY 13/14 budget amount, equaled roughly 12% vs. about 7.2 % in FY 12/13. Actual YTD revenue came to $533,537 vs. $841,598 in the previous fiscal year. This dollar variance reflects primarily the timing of a transfer from the Tourism Fund to the General Fund. See, also, Note (b) below. Revenues – Intergovernmental: Revenue from Federal Government. In FY 13/14, actual YTD revenue, as a percentage of FY 13/14 budget amount, equaled roughly 53.6% vs. about 45.3% in FY 12/13. Actual YTD revenue came to $2,294,076 vs. $1,935,029 in the previous fiscal year. This dollar variance reflects primarily the payment to the County of a prior year FEMA grant, as well as an increases in amounts paid to Albemarle for Social Services administration and Medicaid-UVA line items. Expenditures Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances Public Safety: Volunteer Fire. In FY 13/14, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 13/14 budgeted amount came to roughly 60% vs. 50.5% in FY 12/13. Actual YTD expenditures equaled $1,101,916 vs. $768,690 in FY 12/13. This dollar variance reflects in large part an increase the leasing costs associated with buildings. Human Development: Social Services. In FY 13/14, actual YTD expenditure as a percentage of FY 13/14 budgeted amount equaled 43.7% vs. about 48% in FY 12/13. Actual YTD expenditures came to $6,182,635 vs. $6,771,966 in FY 12/13. This variance results primarily from the timing of transfers to the CSA and Bright Stars funds. Education: Transfer to Schools CIP Fund. In FY 13/14, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 13/14 budgeted amount equaled 25% vs. 43.2% in FY 12/13. Actual YTD expenditure in FY 13/14 was $288,219 vs. $1,298,987 in FY 12/13. This variance reflects the timing of the transfer. Page 2 of 8 Albemarle County Analysis of Significant Variances in General Fund Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 Expenditures (Cont.) Description of Significant Year-to-Year Variances Education: Transfer to Schools Fund. In FY 13/14, actual YTD Expenditures as a percentage of FY 13/14 budgeted amount came to 25% vs. 50% in FY 12/13. Actual YTD expenditure in FY 13/14 was $25,833,007 vs. $50,053,149 in FY 12/13. This variance reflects the timing of the expenditure. Transfers, Contingencies, and Refunds: Transfer Accounts. In FY 13/14, actual YTD expenditures as a percentage of FY 13/14 budgeted amount came to 22.1% vs. 33.7% in FY 12/13. Actual YTD expenditure in FY 13/14 equaled $1,250,892 vs. $3,850,718 in FY 12/13. This dollar variance results mainly from the timing of transfers to the General Fund CIP and the General Fund Debt Service, as well as a budgeted zero amount (and, therefore, zero transfer) to Storm Drainage. Notes: (a) Significant variances are defined as differences of more than two percentage points and $200,000. (b) In FY 13, the Board of Supervisors authorized the use of $11,715,814 from existing fund balance monies, shown in Column F, Line 11. Not all of the appropriated fund balance , however, was required to be utilized for this specific fiscal year. Page 3 of 8 A B C D E F G H FY 13/14 FY 13/14 FY 12/13 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 13/14 Actual Actual as %FY 12/13 FY 12/13 Actual Actual as % Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised No.Item Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col G/Col F) REVENUES Reveues - Local 1 Property Tax $143,703,479 $143,703,479 $69,372,772 48.27%$140,455,780 $140,455,780 $69,332,229 49.36% 2 Other Local Taxes 46,818,062 46,818,062 12,518,139 26.74%45,215,800 45,215,800 12,044,850 26.64% 3 Permits, Priv. Fees, Licenses 1,723,949 1,723,949 880,616 51.08%1,645,100 1,645,100 838,617 50.98% 4 Fines and Forfeitures 990,260 990,260 302,756 30.57%839,700 839,700 380,045 45.26% 5 Use of Money and Property 428,522 428,522 183,274 42.77%460,126 461,082 263,292 57.10% 6 Charges for Services 3,123,596 3,123,596 1,464,310 46.88%3,348,371 2,696,826 1,021,943 37.89% 7 Miscellaneous 152,278 152,278 94,917 62.33%135,878 385,878 345,739 89.60% 8 Recovered Costs 260,370 260,370 205,557 78.95%257,077 340,230 83,117 24.43% 9 Subtotal - Local Revenues $197,200,516 $197,200,516 $85,022,342 43.11%$192,357,832 $192,040,396 $84,309,832 43.90% Revenues - Intergovernmental 10 Contribution from School Bd.$368,338 $368,338 $138,514 37.60%$328,338 $328,338 $169,449 51.61% 11 Contribution from Other Ent.3,519,977 4,457,046 533,537 11.97%2,283,919 11,715,814 841,598 7.18% 12 Revenue from Commonwealth 23,163,795 23,212,795 11,801,530 50.84%22,976,867 23,195,449 11,784,107 50.80% 13 Revenue from Fed. Govt.4,243,141 4,276,676 2,294,076 53.64%3,864,910 4,276,219 1,935,029 45.25% 14 Subtotal - Intergovernmental Revs.$31,295,251 $32,314,855 $14,767,656 45.70%$29,454,034 $39,515,820 $14,730,183 37.28% 15 TOTAL REVENUES $228,495,767 $229,515,371 $99,789,998 43.48%$221,811,866 $231,556,216 $99,040,015 42.77% EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT Administration 16 Board of Supervisors $599,994 $612,676 $273,792 44.69%$577,136 $582,551 $232,554 39.92% 17 County Executive 1,189,801 1,193,581 560,680 46.97%1,000,914 1,126,073 557,097 49.47% 18 Human Resources 655,864 657,855 197,224 29.98%685,514 589,082 284,609 48.31% 19 County Attorney 1,016,955 1,042,888 520,697 49.93%954,313 992,772 491,228 49.48% 20 Finance 4,658,755 4,728,676 2,351,534 49.73%4,570,221 4,688,376 2,219,315 47.34% 21 Management & Budget 342,516 495,581 202,262 40.81%296,594 302,184 149,689 49.54% 22 Information Technology 2,516,804 2,536,344 1,168,378 46.07%2,325,111 2,358,647 1,170,959 49.65% 23 Access Albemarle 0 28,470 100,320 352.37%250,000 221,170 55,988 25.31% 24 Registrar 565,954 593,610 293,065 49.37%578,834 608,635 322,624 53.01% 25 Total Administration 11,546,643 11,889,681 5,667,952 47.67%11,238,637 11,469,489 5,484,064 47.81% Albemarle County Quartery Financial Report Comparison -General Fund Quarter Ended December 31, 2013 vs. Quarter Ended December 31, 2012 Page 4 of 8 A B C D E F G H FY 13/14 FY 13/14 FY 12/13 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 13/14 Actual Actual as %FY 12/13 FY 12/13 Actual Actual as % Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised No.Item Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col G/Col F) Judicial 26 Circuit Court $99,312 $99,864 $52,843 52.92%$121,348 $121,757 $49,209 40.42% 27 General District Court 37,285 37,285 12,942 34.71%23,955 41,955 15,756 37.55% 28 Magistrate 4,350 4,350 4,022 92.45%4,375 4,299 4,279 99.52% 29 Juvenile Court 113,381 113,381 113,381 100.00%111,522 111,598 111,598 100.00% 30 Clerk of Court 780,096 780,332 358,328 45.92%675,474 750,445 371,256 49.47% 31 Sheriff 2,196,868 2,235,177 1,170,372 52.36%2,099,390 2,185,596 1,127,335 51.58% 32 Commonwealth Attorney 1,042,113 1,057,925 526,416 49.76%1,005,857 1,020,819 506,031 49.57% 33 Total Judicial 4,273,405 4,328,314 2,238,305 51.71%4,041,921 4,236,470 2,185,463 51.59% Public Safety 34 Police $15,151,349 $15,346,798 $7,359,171 47.95%$14,073,637 $14,360,308 $6,904,499 48.08% 35 Fire/Rescue 9,554,146 9,687,020 4,625,273 47.75%8,160,828 8,582,331 3,939,419 45.90% 36 Volunteer Fire 1,545,219 1,837,683 1,101,916 59.96%1,393,165 1,521,705 768,690 50.52% 37 Volunteer Rescue 494,380 494,380 245,446 49.65%465,184 465,184 230,441 49.54% 38 Fire/Rescue Forest Fire Ext.23,929 23,929 23,929 100.00%23,786 23,786 23,786 100.00% 39 City Fire Contract 150,000 150,000 0 0.00%887,920 887,920 0 0.00% 40 Regional Jail 3,415,945 3,415,945 1,148,064 33.61%3,617,064 3,644,252 1,288,499 35.36% 41 Inspections 1,108,821 1,108,821 541,873 48.87%1,094,667 1,102,393 543,745 49.32% 42 ECC - General Fund 1000 2,191,183 2,191,183 1,095,592 50.00%2,197,797 2,207,305 945,532 42.84% 43 Contributions - Public Safety 1,737,466 1,737,466 712,338 41.00%1,654,250 1,654,443 846,317 51.15% 44 Total Public Safety 35,372,438 35,993,225 16,853,601 46.82%33,568,298 34,449,627 15,490,928 44.97% Public Works 45 Solid Waste, Recycling $420,523 $558,629 $123,800 22.16%$472,800 $475,500 $135,434 28.48% 46 Facilities Development 193,425 186,670 58,800 31.50%882,895 203,273 69,495 34.19% 47 General Services 3,417,101 3,422,008 1,415,723 41.37%3,117,176 3,299,880 1,549,705 46.96% 48 Total Public Works 4,031,049 4,167,307 1,598,324 38.35%4,472,871 3,978,653 1,754,634 44.10% Human Development 49 Social Services $13,998,895 $14,148,707 $6,182,635 43.70%$13,589,656 $14,124,237 $6,771,966 47.95% 50 Contr. to Agencies & Tx. Relief 4,509,822 4,509,822 2,204,128 48.87%4,410,523 4,410,523 2,016,895 45.73% 51 Total Human Development 18,508,717 18,658,529 8,386,763 44.95%18,000,179 18,534,760 8,788,861 47.42% Education 52 Piedmont Va. Community College $24,962 $24,962 $12,481 50.00%$22,750 $22,750 $11,375 50.00% 53 Transfer to Schools CIP 1,152,877 1,152,877 288,219 25.00%1,245,068 3,004,743 1,298,987 43.23% 54 Transfer to Schools Debt Service 12,428,551 12,428,551 10,183,934 81.94%12,685,589 12,650,439 10,257,946 81.09% 55 Transfer to Schools Fund 103,332,028 103,332,028 25,833,007 25.00%100,106,298 100,106,298 50,053,149 50.00% 56 Total Education 116,938,418 116,938,418 36,317,641 31.06%114,059,705 115,784,230 61,621,457 53.22% Page 5 of 8 A B C D E F G H FY 13/14 FY 13/14 FY 12/13 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 13/14 Actual Actual as %FY 12/13 FY 12/13 Actual Actual as % Line Adopted Revised Through of Revised Adopted Revised Through of Revised No.Item Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col C/Col B)Budget Budget FY Q2 (Col G/Col F) Parks, Recreation, and Culture 57 Towe Park $181,200 $213,244 $0 0.00%$193,698 $195,384 $37,899 19.40% 58 Parks & Recreation 2,262,540 2,282,433 1,233,175 54.03%2,172,473 2,265,581 1,226,502 54.14% 59 Libraries 3,448,931 3,448,931 1,724,466 50.00%3,258,054 3,258,054 1,629,027 50.00% 60 Contributions - Parks 723,982 723,982 371,741 51.35%674,258 674,258 348,179 51.64% 61 Total Parks, Rec. and Culture 6,616,653 6,668,591 3,329,382 49.93%6,298,483 6,393,277 3,241,607 50.70% Community Development 62 Community Development $4,027,609 $4,060,685 $2,032,596 50.06%$3,958,407 $4,019,854 $1,938,603 48.23% 63 Housing 482,674 490,084 249,211 50.85%462,774 540,885 274,483 50.75% 64 Soil & Water Conservation 115,646 115,646 58,457 50.55%99,376 100,352 49,837 49.66% 65 Extension Programs 181,901 182,037 35,220 19.35%196,311 204,027 47,066 23.07% 66 Contributions - Comm. Dev.1,501,911 1,501,911 761,146 50.68%1,400,287 1,400,287 704,084 50.28% 67 City/County Rev. Sharing 16,931,333 16,931,333 0 0.00%17,520,948 17,520,948 0 0.00% 68 Total Community Develop.23,241,074 23,281,696 3,136,629 13.47%23,638,103 23,786,354 3,014,072 12.67% Transfers, Contigencies, and Refunds 69 Transfer Accounts $5,634,980 $5,666,214 $1,250,892 22.08%$4,605,871 $11,424,058 $3,850,718 33.71% 70 Contingency Accounts 2,168,890 1,759,896 335,343 19.05%1,724,298 1,035,798 387,257 37.39% 71 Refunds 163,500 163,500 66,054 40.40%163,500 463,500 77,795 16.78% 72 Total Transf, Cont, and Refs.7,967,370 7,589,610 1,652,289 21.77%6,493,669 12,923,356 4,315,770 33.40% 73 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 228,495,767 229,515,371 79,180,886 34.50%221,811,866 231,556,216 105,896,857 45.73% Excess/(Deficiency) of 74 Revenues over Expends.0 0 20,609,112 0 0 (6,856,842) Page 6 of 8 Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, January 21, 2014. Property Tax, 62.61%Other Local Taxes, 20.40% Fines, Fees, Charges, and Contrib., 5.01% Rev. from Commonwealth, 10.11% Rev. from Fed. Govt., 1.86% Albemarle County FY 2013/14 General Fund -Revised Budget Revenues $229,515,371 Property Tax, 69.52% Other Local Taxes, 12.54% Fines, Fees, Charges, and Contrib., 3.81% Rev. from Commonwealth, 11.83% Rev. from Fed. Govt., 2.30% Albemarle County FY 2013/14 General Fund -YTD Actual Revenues $99,789,998 Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, January 21, 2014. Page 7 of 8 Administration, 5.2% Judicial, 1.9% Public Safety, 15.7% Public Works, 1.8% Human Dev., 8.1% Educ. CIP & Tr. to Educ., 51.0% Parks & Rec., 2.9% Community Development, 10.1% Transf., Conts., and Refunds, 3.3% Albemarle County FY 2013/14 General Fund -Revised Budget Expenditures by Functional Area & Transfers $229,515,371 Administration, 7.2%Judicial, 2.8% Public Safety, 21.3% Public Works, 2.0% Human Dev., 10.6% Educ. CIP & Tr. to Educ., 45.9% Parks & Rec., 4.2% Community Development, 4.0% Transf., Conts., and Refunds, 2.1% Albemarle County FY 2013/14 General Fund -YTD Actual Expenditures by Functional Area &Transfers $79,180,886 Source: Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) system, January 21, 2014. Page 8 of 8 General Fund FY 14 Revised Financial Projections Report January 16, 2014 Introduction The Albemarle County General Fund Revised Financial Projections Report (RFPR) reflects staff estimates, as of January 16, 2014, for the County’s FY 2013/14 revenues and expenditures through June 30, 2014. The revenue projections contained in this report were developed by the County’s Revenue Team, consisting of the following members: Lori S. Allshouse, Director, Office of Management and Budget Betty J. Burrell, Director, Department of Finance Mark Graham, Director, Department of Community Development Steven A. Allshouse, Manager of Economic Analysis and Forecasting, Department of Finance L. Rocio Lamb, Division Manager of Revenue and Taxation, Department of Finance Bob Willingham, County Assessor, Department of Finance Laura F. Vinzant, Senior Budget Analyst, Office of Management and Budget The expenditure projections contained in this report were developed by the County’s Office of Management and Budget. Background The County’s fiscal situation in FY 2013/14 continues to reflect an improving U.S. macroeconomic environment. In order to get a sense of the pace of economic recovery that is expected to occur at the national level in coming quarters, consider the data contained in the January 2014 Wall Street Journal survey of 49 nationally known economists. The results of this survey reveal an average forecast of 6.6% for the national unemployment rate by June 2014 (which would be the lowest rate since October 2008, but clearly above the 5% level that many economists would consider “full” employment), and an average annualized rate of growth in real U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) of 2.65% during the first and second quarters of calendar year 2014.1 One factor that has helped the U.S. economy recently involves growth in private consumption. This segment of the economy accounts for about 70% of GDP and has been aided recently by gains in home prices. According to one estimate, for every dollar increase in home equity, people who own homes consume an additional three cents worth of goods and services.2 Another factor that has helped fuel the recovery in the U.S. economy, for reasons similar to growth in housing values, involves rising U.S. equity markets. As stock markets have risen in recent years, growth in household net worth likely has encouraged households to increase spending on consumer goods. An increase in private investment is another factor that has helped the ongoing national economic recovery. Private investment represents about 16% of U.S. GDP , and accounted for about one-third of the Q3 CY 13 rise in U.S. GDP.3 It should be pointed out, however, that this growth in private investment largely reflected increased inventory levels. One way to interpret this situation is that sales were too weak to keep up with growth in inventory and that growth might slow down in coming quarters. An alternate reading of the situation, however, is that the Page 1 of 4 rise in inventories in reflects business owners’ confidence that consumption will pick up in coming quarters; the idea would be that businesses increased inventory levels in Q3 of CY 13 in anticipation of growth in consumption in coming quarters. Yet another U.S. macroeconomic variable that will continue to have an important impact on the U.S. economy involves federal government spending, which accounts for roughly 8% of the country’s output. Note that, contrary to what some analysts had feared, the sequester that went into effect on March 1, 2013 does not appear to have pushed the U.S. back into a recession. Recent activity in the U.S. House of Representatives suggests, additionally, that overall federal spending next fiscal year will be higher than the level of spending that would have occurred under sequestration’s next round of cuts.4 One other piece of good news regarding the U.S. economy involves the inflationary outlook; despite concerns in recent years that the Federal Reserve System’s monetary policy eventually might lead to an acceleration the rate of inflation, there is evidence that inflationary pres sure in the U.S. remains subdued. On average, the economists in the Wall Street Journal survey cited above indicated an average expected annualized rate of inflation of about 1.5% in the first and second quarters of calendar year 2014. Discussion A. General Fund Revenue Projections Within the context of an improving U.S. macroeconomic environment, County revenues, excluding Transfers and Fund Balance Appropriations, at the end of FY 2013/14 are estimated to total $226.123 million, or roughly $1.433 million (0.64%) higher than Budget. Combined with the use of $2.810 million in transfers from other funds and $2.015 million in fund balance, Revenues, Transfers, and Use of Fund Balances are expected to total $230.948 million, or $1.433 million (0.62%) greater than Budget. The following points provide a brief revenue analysis for FY 2013/14 through June 30, 2014: Property Tax Revenue is expected to be higher than Budget by $0.476 million (0.33%). Note that this category includes, among other revenues, Real Property Tax, Personal Property Tax, and Delinquent Tax Collections. o Real Property Tax Revenue is forecasted to end the year at $114.681 million, roughly $0.895 million above Budget. This result incorporates currently available information about the County’s January 1, 2014 reassessments. o Personal Property Tax revenue is expected to equal $21.515 million, or roughly $0.427 million (1.9%) below budget. This result incorporates information gleaned from FY 13 year-end results and ongoing analysis of automobile sales. Page 2 of 4 o Delinquency Collections are expected to come to roughly $2.835 million, in line with Budget. This result incorporates a review of FY 13 year-end results, as well as current information about the pace of collections and remaining delinquencies. Other Local Tax Revenue is forecasted to exceed Budget by approximately $1.09 million (or by 2.3%). Major categories of interest within this broad revenue stream include Sa les Tax, Business License Tax, Consumer Utility Tax, and Food & Beverage Tax. o Sales Tax revenue is forecasted to be $14.054 million, $1.103 million (8.52%) higher than Budget. This expected variance is due to strong sales activity in new retail space that has opened along the Highway 29 North corridor, as well as an improving labor market during the course of the past year. o Business License Tax is estimated to come to $10.921 million, $0.875 million (8.71%) above budgeted. This result reflects a general improvement in economic conditions. o Consumer Utility Tax is forecasted to equal $8.320 million, roughly $0.805 million (8.82%) below Budget. This worse-than-expected performance is due to a continuing drop in Telecommunications tax revenue, which might reflect an ongoing consumer trend away from landline phones. o Food & Beverage Tax revenue is estimated to end the year at $6.395 million. This amount is $0.097 million (1.5%) below Budget. This result, although slightly disappointing, is higher than the $6.168 million in Food & Beverage tax that the County took in during the course of the previous fiscal year. Other Local Revenues (a broad category which includes Permits, Fines & Forfeitures, Use of Money and Property, Charges for Services, Miscellaneous Revenues, and Recovered Costs) is expected to come to $6.623 million. This amount is below budget by $0.056 million (or 0.84%). This difference reflects lower-than-expected performance in the Fines and Forfeitures and Charges for Services categories. State Revenues are forecast to equal $23.171 million, essentially in line with budget. Federal Revenues are expected to come to $4.244 million. This amount is roughly in line with budget. Transfers from other funds are forecast to be $2.810 million, equal to budget. Budgeted use of fund balance is $2.015 million. This amount represents primarily transfer to capital and is expected to be fully utilized. The County is expected, however, to experience cost savings which will result in new fund balance by the end of the fiscal year. Page 3 of 4 B. General Fund Expenditure Projections General Fund expenditures, including transfers, are forecast to total $228.864 million at the end of the fiscal year. This amount is $0.651 million (or 0.28%) less than budget. Departmental expenditures are expected to be $87.281 million, roughly $0.800 million (or 0.81%) less than budget. Non-Departmental expenditures consist of the County’s revenue sharing payment to the Cit y of Charlottesville, reserves, and refunds. Collectively, these items are forecast to total $18.820 million, slightly lower than budget by $0.035 million (or 0.19%). Transfers are expected to equal $122.577 million at the end of the fiscal year. This amount includes Transfers to the School Division ($103.332 million) and Transfer to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds ($19.245 million). These transfer amounts are essentially equal to budget. C. Budget Impact The FY 2013/14 Revised Financial Projections Report indicates that forecasted revenues, including transfers, will be $230.948 million, $1.433 million greater than appropriated revenues and transfers. Expenditures, including transfers, are forecast to be $228.864 million, $0.651 million less than appropriated expenditures and transfers. The net result is that, at June 30, 2013, projected revenues and transfers will be $2.084 million (or 0.91%) above expected expenditures and transfers. Please note that this projected $2.084 million in additional fund balance equals only 0.91% of the projected $228.864 million FY 14 expenditures and transfers; this small percentage “buffer” reflects an extremely tight budgetary environment . Page 4 of 4 FY 14 FY 14 Revised Proj. Rev. 07/01/13 12/31/2013 % Total Revenue Variance as a % of Revenues Adopted Appropriations Appropriations Projections Proj. - Approp.Approp. Amt. Property Taxes $143.703 $143.703 62.6%$144.180 $0.476 100.33% Other Local Taxes 46.818 46.818 20.4%47.906 1.088 102.32% Permits, Priv. Fees, Licenses 1.724 1.724 0.8%1.859 0.135 107.84% Fines and Forfeitures 0.990 0.990 0.4%0.812 -0.178 82.04% Use of Money and Property 0.429 0.429 0.2%0.498 0.070 116.22% Charges for Services 3.124 3.124 1.4%3.040 -0.084 97.32% Miscellaneous 0.152 0.152 0.1%0.152 0.000 100.00% Recovered Costs 0.260 0.260 0.1%0.261 0.000 100.16% State Revenue 23.164 23.213 10.1%23.171 -0.042 99.82% Federal Revenue 4.243 4.277 1.9%4.244 -0.032 99.25% Subtotal - Revenues 224.607 224.690 97.9%226.123 $1.433 100.64% Transfers Use of Other Funds 2.501 2.810 1.2%2.810 0.000 100.00% Use of Fund Balance 1.387 2.015 0.9%2.015 0.000 100.00% Subtotal - Transfers $3.888 $4.825 2.1%$4.825 $0.000 100.00% Total - Revenues & Transfers $228.496 $229.515 100.0%$230.948 $1.433 100.62% FY 14 FY 14 Revised Proj. Exp. 07/01/13 12/31/2013 % Total Expenditure Variance as a % of Expenditures Adopted Appropriations Appropriations Projections Proj. - Approp.Approp. Amt. Administration $11.547 $11.890 0.343 5.2%$11.834 -$0.056 99.53% Judicial 4.273 4.328 0.055 1.9%4.298 -0.031 99.29% Public Safety 35.372 35.993 0.621 15.7%35.530 -0.463 98.71% Public Works 4.031 4.167 0.136 1.8%4.160 -0.007 99.82% Human Development 18.534 18.683 0.150 8.1%18.493 -0.191 98.98% Parks, Rec. & Culture 6.617 6.669 0.052 2.9%6.677 0.008 100.12% Community Development 6.310 6.350 0.041 2.8%6.476 0.126 101.98% Subtotal - Operations $86.684 $88.081 38.4%$87.467 -$0.614 99.30% Non-Dept. (Rev. share; reserves; refunds)$19.264 $18.855 -0.409 8.2%$18.820 -$0.035 99.82% Transfers Transfer to School Division 103.332 103.332 45.0%103.332 0.000 100.00% Transfers to Capital, Debt, and Other Funds 19.216 19.248 8.4%19.245 -0.003 99.99% Subtotal - Transfers $122.548 $122.580 53.4%$122.577 -$0.003 100.00% Total - Expenditures & Transfers $228.496 $229.515 100.0%$228.864 -$0.651 99.72% Projected FY 13/14 Revenue in Excess of Expenditures $2.084 County of Albemarle General Fund FY 2013/14 Projection Report as of January 16, 2014 (in $ Millions) Sources: Adopted and Appropriated Amounts are taken from the Albemarle County ER system, via AADR, January 16, 2014. Projected Revenues come from the Albemarle County Dept. of Finance. Projected Expenditures and Projected Transfer amounts are supplied by the Albemarle County Office of Management and Budget. ENDNOTES 1. Please see the Wall Street Journal, “Economic Forecasting Survey: January, 2014.” http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash08.html?project=EFORECAST07 The figures cited in the text were derived from the data contained in the survey’s downloadable spreadsheet. 2. This three cent marginal propensity to consume (MPC) out of each dollar of increased housing wealth was estimated recently by Mark Zandi, Chief Economist at Moody’s Analytics, as quoted in the January 9, 2014 article, “Home Equity Gains Spur the Economy as Owners Buy Cars” on Bloomberg.com. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-09/home-equity-gains-spur-the-economy-as- owners-buy-cars-mortgages.html 3. Please see the December 20, 2013 article, “Third-Quarter Growth in U.S. Revised Higher on Services” on Bloomberg.com. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-20/third-quarter-growth-in-u-s-revised-higher-on- services-spending.html 4. See the January 15, 2014 New York Times article, “In Defeat for Tea Party, House Passes $1.1 Trillion Spending Bill.” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us/politics/in-defeat-for-tea-party-house-passes-1-1- trillion-spending-bill.html?_r=0 This item mentions, specifically, that the bill included a “$45 billion increase in spending compared with with where the budget would have been had House Republicans let another round of automatic spending cuts take effect.” Albemarle County Quarterly Economic Indicators Report February 5, 2014 Introduction The Quarterly Economic Indicators report is intended to give the Board of Supervisors a brief update about the general condition of Albemarle County’s economy. This report examines data for a set of variables in the most recently available quarter and compares this information with corresponding figures for the same quarter of several previous calendar years. This approach renders an indication of the current state of the County’s economy and, additionally, gives a sense about the performance of Albemarle’s economy over time. In recent years, staff has focused on eight quarterly variables that are thought to reflect particularly important information about economic conditions in the County. These variables include (1) Albemarle’s unemployment rate; (2) the total number of jobs in the County; (3) sales tax revenue; (4) food and beverage tax revenue; (5) transient occupancy tax revenue; (6) the number of months supply of unsold inventory in Albemarle’s residential real estate market; (7) the number of residential building permits; and (8) the dollar value of residential and non - residential building permits The unemployment rate and total number of jobs speak to the health of Albemarle’s labor market. The three tax revenue streams reflect general economic conditions and reveal not only levels of local consumption but, also, can provide information about the health of the County’s tourism industry, an important component of the County’s economy. The housing inventory variable helps give insight about the likely future direction of housing prices in Albemarle . In recent years, housing market conditions have had extremely important implications for the future direction of the County’s economy. The building permit data reflects the health of the construction industry, another important component of Albemarle’s economy, and has implications for the County’s future real property revenues. Discussion Unemployment Rate As of the quarter that ended on September 30, 2013, the average monthly unemployment rate in Albemarle during this quarter stood at 4.67%, down from 4.87% during the same quarter of the previous year. This slight decline mirrored changes at the U.S. and Virginia levels. Please see Graph I on the next page. Note that the unemployment rate takes into account only people who participate in the labor force. The unemployment rate can drop or rise as people exit or enter the labor market. Based on historical monthly data from 1990 to the present, staff thinks that an unemployment rate of about 3.5% would represent the “natural” rate of unemployment in the County. This term pertains to individuals who have voluntarily left previous employment and currently are looking for new employment. In a “full employment” labor market, these individuals would be the only unemployed people, so the actual unemployment rate would equal the “natural” rate. Page 1 of 8 9.60 9.50 9.10 8.13 7.43 6.80 6.80 6.40 5.97 5.535.30 5.40 5.10 4.87 4.67 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Unemployment Rate (%)Graph I --Albemarle County, Virginia, and United States Q3 Unemployment Rates (CY 2009 -CY 2013) US Virginia Albemarle Source:Derived from data on the Virginia Employment Commission LAUS webpage, accessed January 16, 2014. Total Number of Jobs The average monthly total number of jobs in the County, i.e., jobs by place of employment, also offers a general indication of the health of Albemarle’s labor market. The total number of positions rose by about 1.6% between the quarter ended June 30, 2012 and the quarter ended June 30, 2013, increasing from 50,758 to 51,556. Please see Graph II on the next page. Some caution should be exercised in interpreting this growth in the total number of jobs, since the data includes both full-time and part-time jobs, as well as temporary jobs. Changes in this last category in particular can cause substantial year-over-year swings in the numbers. Sales Tax Revenue The level of local option sales tax revenue increased from about $3.148 million in Q3 of calendar year (CY) 2012 to roughly $3.303 million in Q3 of CY 2013. This growth of $0.156 million (or 5%) reflects a general improvement in local economic conditions as well as the opening of a substantial volume of new retail space in the County along the Highway 29 North corridor. As shown in Graph III on the next page, sales tax revenue experienced a decline between Q4 of 2010 and Q4 of 2011. This drop was related to the relocation of a major retailer from the County to the City in June of 2011. Robust growth in the past two calenda r years, however, has more than made up for this loss. Staff expects that, in the next several quarters, sales tax revenue will grow at the expected rate of increase in the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI) plus the expected rate of growth in U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Page 2 of 8 51,289 50,276 50,138 50,427 50,758 51,556 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Total No. of Full-and Part-Time JobsGraph II --Albemarle County Q2 Total Number of Jobs (CY 2008 -CY 2013) Source:Derived from data on the Virginia Employment Commission QCEW webpage, accessed January 16, 2014. 2.937 3.180 3.020 3.148 3.304 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Revenue, in $ MillionsGraph III --Albemarle County Q3 Sales Tax Revenue (CY 2009 -CY 2013) Source:Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) System, accessed January 16, 2014. Page 3 of 8 Food and Beverage Tax Revenue Between Q3 of CY 2012 and Q3 of CY 2013, food and beverage tax revenue increased from $1.541 million to $1.589 million. See Graph IV, below. This $0.048 million (3.1%) increase reflects a generally improving local economy, as well as the addition of new restaurant space along the Highway 29 North corridor of the County. Staff assumes that food and beverage tax revenue will increase at the expected rate of growth in the U.S. CPI plus the expec ted rate of increase in U.S. GDP during the course of the next several quarters. 1.324 1.399 1.437 1.541 1.589 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Revenue, in $ MillionsGraph IV --Albemarle County Q3 Food & Beverage Tax Revenue (CY 2009-CY 2013) Source:Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) System., accessed January 16, 2014. Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue This revenue stream declined from about $0.273 million in Q3 of CY 2012 to $0.271 million in Q3 of CY 2013. Please see Graph V on the next page. This drop of about $0.002 million (0.7%) might simply reflect a statistical anomaly; the opening of a major new hotel along the Highway 29 North corridor likely will result in growth in this revenue stream in coming quarters. Staff assumes that future quarterly changes in TOT revenue will keep pace with the expected increase in the U.S. CPI plus the expected rate of growth in U.S. GDP. Page 4 of 8 0.243 0.231 0.247 0.273 0.271 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Revenue, in $ MillionsGraph V --Albemarle County Q3 TOT Tax Revenue (CY 2009 -CY 2013) Source:Albemarle County Enterprise Reporting (ER) System, accessed January 16, 2014. Residential Real Estate Market One good piece of news involves Albemarle’s housing market. Based on the number of months supply of unsold inventory, Albemarle’s single family detached (SFD) housing market finally appears to have reached equilibrium, after experiencing an oversupply in the past several years. The number of months of unsold housing inventory represents the length of time that the County’s real estate market would need in order to “clear off” a particular quarter’s existing inventory of dwelling units, based on the rate of sales during the quarter. In the case of Albemarle County in Q4 of CY 2013, for example, there were 419 SFD units for sale at the end of the quarter. During the course of the quarter, a monthly average of 68.67 SFD’s were sold. This situation means that, at this rate of sales, the market would take 419/68.67 = 6.10 months to clear these 419 SFD’s. This 6.10 month figure is illustrated in Graph VI, on the next page. Note that the housing market data presented in this report reflects only units for sale or sold through the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors (CAAR) Multiple Listing Service (MLS). The data do not reflect any dwelling units for sale or sold by owners. Many real estate experts consider roughly a six month supply of unsold inventory to represent a residential market in equilibrium, i.e., a situation in which prices do not have a tendency to change (other, perhaps, than at the overall rate of change in the U.S. CPI). An unsold inventory number much above roughly six months indicates downward pressure on housing prices, since supply is greater than demand, whereas an unsold inventory number much below six months indicates upward pressure on housing prices, since supply is less than demand. As shown on Page 5 of 8 Graph VI, in calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012, there was an oversupply of unsold SFD housing inventory. Not surprisingly, SFD prices typically declined during these years, as revealed in the County’s SFD reassessments. The Single Family Attached (SFA) market, in contrast, experienced moderate shortages of dwelling units in calendar years 2011, 20 12, and 2013. This segment, which includes townhouses, has experienced some price appreciation in recent years. It should be pointed out that, of the three housing categories shown in Graph VI, Single Family Detached dwelling units represent the overwhelming majority of the County’s housing market, and the number of month supply of unsold inventory in this market segment has trended downward in the past several years. If the County’s SFD housing market is indeed at or near equilibrium, this situation means that builders will be inclined to construct additional SFD units in the near-term, thereby helping to support aggregate real property tax revenue, as well as other tax revenue streams, such as building permit fees and construction -related sales tax. 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 2010 2011 2012 2013No. of Months of Unsold InventoryGraph VI --Albemarle County Q4 Number of Months Supply of Unsold Dwelling Units in the CAAR MLS (CY 2010 -CY 2013) Condominium Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Note: ~ Six months signifies "equilibrium" in the market. Source: Albemarle County Dept. of Finance. One other note regarding the County’s housing market involves condominiums. This segment of the market is very small. The dramatic fall in the condominium inventory numbers between 2010 and 2012 likely resulted from the conversion of many condominiums from for-sale status to rental status. Currently, Albemarle’s housing market appears to have a surplus of condominiums. This return to an oversupply in the market, after apparently having reached equilibrium in 2012, might have resulted from condominium owners’ waiting to sell during the challenging market years of 2010 and 2011, and then crowding back into the market after conditions improved in 2012. Page 6 of 8 New Construction As shown on Graph VII, below, the total number of residential building p ermits issued by Albemarle County between Q2 of 2012 and Q2 of 2013 declined by 188 or about 56%. This precipitous decline, however, resulted from the fact that a large number of multifamily (apartment) units were built in CY 2012, a situation that pushed up dramatically the total number of residential building permits Q2 of that year. The 147 permits issued in the second quarter of CY 2013, although lower than the 335 permits issued in Q 2 of CY 2012, was quite a bit higher than the number issued in Q2 of CY’s 2009, 2010, and 2011. The difference between the 2013 number and the corresponding figures for these previous years again suggests that the County’s housing market is beginning to recover from the “Great Recession.” 97 92 87 335 147 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Total Number of PermitsGraph VII --Albemarle County Q2 Residential Building Permits Issued (CY 2009 -CY 2013) Source:Albemarle County Building Report for the relevant quarter. The dollar value of residential and non-residential building permits issued by the County, shown on Graph VIII on the next page, seems to confirm an ongoing modest recovery in the housing market. Note that the Q2 CY 2013 figure for residential building permits is the highest of an y of the five years on the graph. Note also that, on the non-residential side, the total dollar value declined in Q2 of CY’s 2010 and 2011, rose dramatically in Q2 of CY 2012, and then declined again in Q2 of CY 2013. The spike in 2012 reflected construc tion along the Highway 29 North corridor, while the previous spike, in 2009, resulted from activity related to the building of the new Martha Jefferson Hospital. Generally speaking, in terms of the dollar value of new permits issued, the residential side of new construction tends to have a smoother trajectory than does the non-residential side, which can exhibit a choppy unevenness from year to year; this latter side of the market displays temporal “clustering” of new construction. Page 7 of 8 27.650 25.165 24.824 27.406 36.530 49.796 31.560 18.565 58.252 22.623 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013Total Dollar Value (in Millions)Graph VIII --Albemarle County Total Dollar Value of Residential and Non- Residential Building Permits Issued (CY 2009 -CY 2013) Residential Non-Residential Source:Albemarle County Building Report for the relevant quarter. Conclusions Albemarle County’s economy appears to be growing at a moderate pace. The unemployment rate continues to decline from recession highs, but is still above the “natural” rate of unemployment. The total number of jobs in the County is at the highest Q2 level in the six years examined in this report, although it should be pointed out that Albemarle’s population is larger now than was the case in 2008; the number of jobs per 1,000 residents might not have recovered to the Q2 2008 level. General economic activity, as evidenced by sales, food & beverage, and TOT revenues, appears to be picking up , and likely will continue to grow at a healthy clip as new commercial space opens in the County. The resid ential real estate market continues to recover from the “Great Recession” and its aftermath, as suggested by both the number of months supply of unsold housing inventory as well as the dollar value of new residential building permits. The non-residential real estate market, meanwhile, has seen substantial growth in new development in the past several years, although this growth has come in clusters. Page 8 of 8 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Records Retention of Potential Historic Documents SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Update on the progress of an ongoing effort to establish standard procedures for records retention beyond State requirements STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Letteri, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and Weaver PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The retention and destruction of public records are primarily governed by State law and guidelines established by the Library of Virginia. During FY12, the County embarked on a formal “Records Management” initiative led by an internal team, the focus of which is to produce a comprehensive program and operating procedures for retaining various kinds of public records. Recently, the Records Management Team hired a consultant to help assess the County’s needs and to conduct a record and document inventory as a first step in the process. The work of the Records Management Team and the consultant is expected to be ongoing over the next couple of years. A recent event involving the destruction of certain documents highlighted the need for the County to consider State records retention and destruction requirements against the County’s need for policies related to potentially historic records. In this context, “historical” records or documents might include documents that are or should be maintained by the County or maintained by others because they are deemed historically significant by others (e.g., Historical Society or the Historic Preservation Committee) or are considered useful for historical research. Following the destruction of the documents referred to above, the County Executive’s Office form ed a “Historical Documents Team” (comprised of County staff and representatives of the Albemarle Charlottesville Historical Society and the County’s Historic Preservation Committee) to evaluate the County’s practices related to potentially historic records and documents. This Team was charged to make specific recommendations to the Records Management Team as to policies, standards, and procedures to include in our Records Management Program. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 7. Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service. DISCUSSION: The Historical Documents Team has regularly met since July and is developing proposed revisions to the County’s policies, standards, and procedures in the Records Management Manual. It is anticipated that the Team will conclude its efforts at the end of February and will provide recommendations based on its review and assessment of the data collected during the County-wide record and document inventory and its review of the Records Management Manual. Those recommendations will be reviewed for consistency with State law and to ensure that historically important documents are properly managed and preserved, and provide a heightened awareness and specific guidance related to historical records, documents, and artifacts. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact related to this item . RECOMMENDATIONS: This summary is provided for information only and no action is required at this time. Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: County Grant Application Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Summary of grant applications submitted and grants received from October 15, 2013 through January15, 2014 STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Davis, Walker, White, and Allshouse, L. PRESENTER (S): N/A LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Pursuant to the County’s Grants Policy and associated procedures, staff provides periodic reports to the Board on the County’s application for and use of grants. In the FY14 Budget, the Board approved a part-time position of a Grants Analyst to provide assistance to departments’ grant efforts and to monitor and improve processes for coordinating applications and awards. On January 6, 2014, Kristy Shifflett joined the Office of Management and Budget to fill this position and will be assuming the responsibilities, including providing these Board reports. STRATEGIC PLAN: Grant awards provide funding to support a variety of projects, the majority of which support Goal 5, Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: The attached Grants Report provides a brief description of two grant applications submitted and one award received for the time period of October 15, 2013 to January 15, 2014. All grant funds and matching funds are subject to appropriation by the Board prior to the expenditure of any funds awarded to the County. BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact is noted in the summary of each grant. RECOMMENDATIONS: This report is for information only. ATTACHMENTS: Grant Report Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda GRANT REPORT ACTIVITY from October 15, 2013 through January 17, 2014 Applications were made for the following grants: Granting Entity Grant Amount Requested Match Required Dept. Purpose VA Department of Forestry VA Trees for Clean Water State $1,214 None General Services To plant trees that restore and improve the waters of the Chesapeake Bay for the benefit of current and future citizens of the Commonwealth and to achieve long-term improvements in water quality through long-lived tree cover and increased public involvement. VA Department of Health Office of Emergency Medical Services VPHIB Hardware Initiative Grant State $201,500 None Fire/Rescue Purchase mobile data computers for licensed EMS units (ambulances and fire apparatus used as medic units). Awards were received for the following grants: Granting Entity Grant Amount Requested Match Required Dept. Purpose VA Office of the Attorney General Asset Forfeiture Transfer Program Federal $971,167 None Police Funding for a regional firearms training center. Board received update on January 8, 2014 and authorized staff to proceed with an RFP for A&E services. Page 1 of 4 Culpeper District Albemarle County Monthly Report February 2014 Preliminary Engineering PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE Route 53 Safety Project – Intersection Improvements at Route 729 Right of Way Advertisement TBD Route 616, Black Cat Road Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way – November 2013 March 2014 Route 677, Broomley Road Bridge Replacement over RR Design Public Hearing Right of Way – September 2013 December 2014 Route 637, Dick Woods Road Bridge Replacement over Ivy Creek Design Public Hearing Right of Way – September 2013 December 2014 Route 29 Widening, Ashwood to Hollymeade Town Center Preliminary Design Public Hearing December 2015 Route 250, Bridge replacement over Little Ivy Creek Preliminary Design Public Hearing January 2018 Route 774, Bear Creek Road, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – 2016 November 2019 Route 703, Pocket Lane, Unpaved Road -- Project Scoping – 2016 November 2019 Route 643 – Reconstruction -- Project Scoping – 2015 -- Route 606 – Dickerson Rd. over North Fork of Rivanna River -- Project Scoping January 2020 Route 29—Adaptive Signal System -- TBD TBD CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: PROJECT LAST MILESTONE NEXT MILESTONE AD DATE Best Buy Ramp Design Public Hearing Right of Way November 2014 Page 2 of 4 Construction Activities Route 29 Bypass (FO)0029-002-844 Scope: Design and construction 6.2 miles of highway between Route 250 to north of South Fork of the Rivanna River. Next major milestone: Obtain approval to publish the EA Contract Completion Date: September 16, 2016 Only activities authorized being perform ed to include IMR/Traffic Studies for northern and southern termini. Additional NTP 1 activities have been authorized including limited non - destructive geotechnical services in support of the EA Re-evaluation, surveying activities in support of the EA Re-evaluation, and stream and wetland delineations. FHWA communicated on October 7, 2013 that the Department will have to address Section 4(f) with regards to the Sammons Homestead. Additional NTP 2 activities such as Final design, RW & CN activities can be initiated after the Section 4(f). Citizen Information Meeting occurred on May 23, 2013. Public Hearings to be scheduled at a later date. EA was submitted to FHWA December 2, 2013. McIntire Interchange 0250-104-103, PE101 Scope: Construct Interchange at McIntire Road and Rte 250 Next Major Milestone: Completion of Phase 1B Phase 1B traffic configuration remains in use while work on extension of McIntire Road, Ramp 4 and Ramp 1 consisting of earthwork, stone and asphalt placement is being pursued for the upcoming Phase 2A shift. Traffic has been shifted on McIntire Road to perform widening work in the vicinity of Ramp 3 necessary for implementation of the Phase 2A configuration. Contractor is forming, installing rebar and placing concrete for cast-in-place wingwalls at the outlet end of the D603 culvert. Access Road to the C.A.R.S. facility is underway, with sanitary sewer installations, subbase and asphalt placement and installation of a new traffic signal being performed. Drainage work is ongoing, with pipe and drainage structures along Ramp 5 recently installed. Dominion Power utility relocations are now complete. Contract Completion date: July 2, 2015. Project Construction started on March 4, 2013. Guardrail Repair GR07-967-096, N501 Scope: Guardrail repairs – on call – District wide. Next Major Milestone: Contract Renewal – 3nd term Contract Completion date: July 1, 2014. Ballards Mill Road 0671-002-6059 Delayed until June 2014 Scope: Superstructure replacement, State Forces. Next Major Milestone: Road Closure, November 4th. Proposed Completion: November 29, 2013 Route 708 Dry Bridge Road (NFO)0708-002-283, C501, B659 Scope: Replace bridge; reconstruct approaches, drainage and incidentals Next Major Milestone: Construct grading, drainage, utilities and new bridge Contract Completion: 12-Sep-14 Page 3 of 4 I-64 Box Culvert Repair (NFO)BRDG-967-083, N501 Scope: I-64 at Ivy Creek Box Culvert Repair, Albemarle County Next Major Milestone: Project Completion Contract Completion: 20-Dec-13 Traffic Engineering Studies Completed Route 20, Stony Point Road @ Route 250, Richmond Road: Intersection pavement marking review; Study completed; Pavement marking installation pending. VDOT Study Number - 003-0250-20130301-006 Route 689, Burch’s Creek Road: Signing review; Study completed; Sign installation pending; VDOT Study Number – 003-0689-20130910-010 Route 614, Garth Road: Signing review; Study completed; Sign installation pending; VDOT Study Number – 003-0614-20130910-010 Route 250 Rockfish Gap Turnpike @ Route 689 Burch’s Creek Road: Safety study; Study completed; Sign relocation pending; VDOT Study Number-- 003-0250-20131008-007 Route 250, Richmond Road @ Route 22, Louisa Road: Pavement marking review; Study completed; Pavement marking installation pending. VDOT Study Number – 003-0250-20130923-006 Route 606, Dickerson Road @ Route 29, Seminole Trail: Safety review; Study completed; Pavement marking installation and brush removal pending. VDOT Study Number- 003-0606-20130819-007 Route 810, White Hall Road @ Route 614, Garth Road: Safety Study; Study complete; Sign installation pending VDOT Study Number-- 003-0810-20131016-007 Under Review Route 631, Old Lynchburg Road: Safety Study; pending; VDOT Study Number—003-0631-20131008-007 Route 250 @ Town and Country Lane: Signal warrant study; pending VDOT Study Number—003-0250-20131106-009 Route 866, Greenbrier Drive: Speed study; pending VDOT Study Number—003-0866-20131204-011 Pratt Road and Alderman Road: Safety review; pending VDOT Study Number—003-0302-20131216-007 Route 250 @ Glenmore Speed study; pending VDOT Study Number—003-0250-20131217-011 Route 22 @ Route 740 Safety review; pending VDOT Study Number—003-022-20140113-007 Page 4 of 4 Route 250 @ Birdwood Signal Warrant study; pending VDOT Study Number—003-0250-20140113-009 Route 677, Bloomfield Road Speed study; pending VDOT Study Number—003-0677-20140113-011 Route 1452, Westfield Court Signing Review; pending VDOT Study Number—003-1452-20140113-010 Maintenance Activities VDOT Area Headquarters crews completed the following activities during the past month. For specific route activities, please contact the Charlottesville Residency Office. Machining of non-hard surface roads has been completed on 28 secondary routes Patching was performed on 5 primary routes and 15 secondary routes Trimmed trees along 1 primary route and 6 secondary routes Debris removed along 2 primary routes and 10 secondary routes Culverts and ditches were cleaned on 3 primary routes and 7 secondary routes All areas prepared equipment and responded to 6 winter weather events Joel DeNunzio Virginia Department of Transportation Charlottesville Residency Administrator 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of a Public Hearing on the Route 29 Western Bypass SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Summary of opportunities for public review and input regarding the Route 29 Western Bypass since June 8, 2011 STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Davis, Catlin, and Jordan PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board requested an action item be added to the February 5, 2014 agenda regarding establishing a February date for a public hearing on the Route 29 Western Bypass. The Board requested that staff provide a summary of all public engagement opportunities regarding the Bypass since the Board’s June 8, 2011 vote to change the County position of being in opposition to the construction of the Western Bypass to the position that “The Board of Supervisors does not oppose a Bypass.” STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 6: Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges . DISCUSSION: Attachment A outlines the opportunities for public discussion and input regarding the Route 29 Western Bypass since June 8, 2011. The venues for these public opportunities include meetings of the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), the Charlottesville Albemarle Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, as well as several task force and town hall meetings. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact related to this item. RECOMMENDATIONS: This summary is provided for information only. ATTACHMENTS: A – List of Route 29 Western Bypass Previous Public Input Opportunities/Public Discussions Return to agenda Route 29 Western Bypass Previous Public Input Opportunities/Public Discussions VDOT Meetings: Sept. 27, 2012 Citizen Information Meeting: on Route 29 Bypass environmental assessment. May 23, 2013 Citizen Information Meeting: to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on three design concepts for the southern interchange of the Route 29 Bypass project. MPO Meetings July 14, 2011 Combined Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)* The proposed amendments would incorporate the proposed US29 Western Bypass project and the proposed widening of US29 north of the existing intersection with Rio Mills Road into the CLRP and TIP. July 27, 2011 Combined Public Hearing on Proposed Amendment to the Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (CLRP) and the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)* The proposed amendments would incorporate the proposed US29 Western Bypass project and the proposed widening of US29 north of the existing intersection with Rio Mills Road into the CLRP and TIP. This was the second of two combined public hearings that were conducted related to the proposed amendments. Board of Supervisors meetings: July 13, 2011 Public hearing: on Albemarle County’s position to support the proposed construction of a Route 29 Western Bypass. July 27, 2011 Special Meeting: for the purpose of allowing Board members to discuss the Route 29 Bypass at the MPO meeting. September 7, 2011 Report Received: VDOT Update at Board meeting regarding bypass milestones. September 14, 2011 Adopted Resolution: requesting that the Virginia Department of Transportation consider a series of recommendations from the Board before awarding a contract for the design and construction of the bypass. October 12, 2011 Adopted Resolution: Northern Terminus of Route 29 Western Bypass. November 2, 2011 Adopted Resolution: Route 29 Western Bypass Resolution from the Jack Jouett Bypass Design Committee. May 2, 2012 Denied motion: Consideration of Request to VDOT to hold public hearing for the Route 29 Western Bypass. June 6, 2012 Denied motion: that the Board of Supervisors go on record in support of the Charlottesville Route 29 Western Bypass as currently proposed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Denied motion: to direct County representatives on the MPO to not support the Route 29 Western Bypass currently being proposed or being considered by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Task Force/Town Hall Meetings: July 26, 2011 Town Hall Mtg. @ Hollymead Elementary School w/Ken Boyd & VDOT Sept. 26, 2011 Town Hall Mtg. @Baker Butler Elementary School w/Ken Boyd Sept. 21, 2011 Jack Jouett By-Pass Task Force Mtg. w/Dennis Rooker Oct. 11, 2011 Jack Jouett By-Pass Task Force Mtg. w/Dennis Rooker Oct. 23, 2011 Jack Jouett By-Pass Task Force Mtg. w/Dennis Rooker Feb. 13, 2012 Jack Jouett By-Pass Task Force Mtg. w/Dennis Rooker Aug. 8, 2012 Jack Jouett By-Pass Task Force Mtg. w/Dennis Rooker COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4th and Preston SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Status Update of Project-based Voucher Approval and Request for Funding for February and March 2014 STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Walker, Davis, and White PRESENTER (S): Ron White LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Staff has provided frequent updates to the Board on the status of the approval of nine project-based vouchers (PBVs) for The Crossings at 4th and Preston, most recently on December 4, 2013. In that update, staff provided a copy of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) letter approving the Environmental Review which noted HUD’s continuing review for the Subsidy Layering Analysis and regulatory waiver requests. Staff also recommended that the Board approve an appropriation of $719 to fully fund rental assistance to six tenants for the month of December which was approved. On January 8, 2014, the Board approved funding for the month of January 2014 in the amount of $3,279. The Crossings at 4th and Preston, developed by the nonprofit Virginia Supportive Housing contains sixty (60) efficiency apartments with thirty (30) of those designated for homeless persons. The County conditionally committed to provide nine (9) Housing Choice Vouchers for the development. In March 2012, HUD notified the County that the actions taken by the County to commit vouchers were not in compliance with a number of program regulations , and vouchers would not be approved until the issues were addressed. A timeline of activities previously provided to the Board is attached (Attachment A). As noted above, HUD approved the Environmental Review on November 4, 2013 (Attachment B). On December 30, 2013, the Office of Housing received the December 20, 2013 approval of the Subsidy Layering Review (Attachment C). Staff have worked closely with Congressman’s Hurt’s office over the last several months in an effort to better facilitate productive communication between HUD HQ, HUD Field Office (Richmond), Virginia Supportive Housing and the County. Further, both Senator Warner’s office and Senator Kaine’s office have been included in communication and have been attentive to the County’s request for assistance and support. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 5: Ensure the health and safety of the community. DISCUSSION: Staff remains optimistic that the approval of the regulatory waivers is forthcoming although HUD has not provided a timeframe for its decision. In an email from HUD on January 16, 2014 (Attachment D), Robert Davenport confirmed that HUD’s Richmond Field Office held a conference call with HUD Headquarters indicating that the review was continuing. Staff response to that email dated the same day at 5:46 PM requested a more definitive response prior to February 5, 2014. On January 17, 2014, Catherine Lamberg, Interim Director of Public Housing in the Richmond Field Office, responded that the Field Office felt confident that an update could be provided prior to February 5, 2014. Later that day, Bryan Wood with Congressman Hurt’s Office, noted that HUD Headquarters indicated that the transition in leadership at the Richmond Field Office was making getting information from Richmond more difficult. In expectation of a HUD decision on the funding but without a definite timeframe for them doing so, staff thinks the County should commit only to providing up to two additional months of assistance for the current six residents at this time. Based on previous Board discussions, staff believe that VSH should not expect any local funding beyond March while recognizing that the Board does retain full discretion should further consideration of this matter be desired. Please note that one of the six residents has recently received disability and will start paying a portion of his rent in March. The total local funding needed to cover the next two months of assistance is $6,106. AGENDA TITLE: Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4th and Preston February 5, 2014 Page 2 BUDGET IMPACT: This action will require an appropriation of $6,106 from Reserve for Contingencies. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve the requested appropriation, which is included in the appropriations that are included with and contingent on a FY15 Budget Amendment scheduled for public hearing on February 5, 2014. ATTACHMENTS: A – Timeline B – Environmental Review Approval Letter C – Subsidy Layering Review Approval Letter D – Emails January 16–17, 2014 Return to agenda MEMORANDUM Prepared by: Ron White SUBJECT: Status of Assistance for The Crossings at Fourth and Preston DATE: April 1, 2013; Updated: June 18, 2013& August 13, 2013 As a brief background, Albemarle County signed an Agreement to Enter into a Housing Assistance Payment Contract (AHAP) with Virginia Supportive Housing on April 28, 2011 committing to provide nine (9) Housing Choice Vouchers to The Crossings. At that time, we had been provided information from the City of Charlottesville, the Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA), and Virginia Supportive Housing (VSH) that all requirements had been met to commit the vouchers. CRHA had already executed an AHAP for their commitment of twenty-one vouchers. In February 2012, VSH notified us that the project would be completed in early March and we prepared nine potential tenants for move-in. The Crossings contains sixty studio apartments with thirty assisted through housing vouchers and thirty available to anyone. When VSH notified us that the rents for the units assisted with vouchers would be over $100 more than the unassisted units, we requested assistance from HUD-Richmond since this was not our understanding of federal regulations regarding comparable rents. In the course of HUD staff providing a response, they also indicated that they had not reviewed a number of things necessary for their approval and that we were not authorized to execute a Housing Assistance Payment Agreement (HAP). On March 27, 2012 HUD staff called to our attention a Public and Indian Housing Notice #2011- 54 which was issued on September 20, 2011 providing guidance on these items, most of which were to be completed prior to executing an AHAP. A number of conference calls were conducted beginning on April 6, 2012 with HUD staff briefly describing the issues that they identified and referring us to the regulations found in 24 CFR 982 and 983. Very little guidance was provided on how we could resolve the issues which they identified being both statutory and regulatory in nature. The following is a timeline on what transpired after the April 6 call. 4/9/12 – Received e-mail from HUD indicating we would need to revise our Administrative Plan and Annual Plan for the administration of the Housing Choice Voucher Program. 4/15/12 and 4/25/12 – Conference calls between HUD and a number of other agencies who had similar deficiencies for other projects in the state. 6/6/12 – Board held a public hearing on the revised Administrative and Annual Plans. Both approved Plans submitted to HUD for review and comment. 8/1/12 - Received HUD comments on Administrative Plan requesting additional revisions. The Board also approved providing general funds for up to twelve months to house the nine approved tenants at The Crossings. 9/5/12 – Board approved the second revision of the Administrative Plan – Plan submitted to HUD. MEMO April 1, 2013 updated June18, 2013 The Crossings – Page 2 9/7/12 – Received a letter from HUD providing guidance in seeking regulatory waivers. 9/18/12 – Letter requesting waivers was sent to HUD. 12/6/12 – e-mailed HUD and copied Richmond Field Office Director inquiring the status on waiver request. 12/31/12 – Received e-mail for Field Office Director stating that the Field Office was “awaiting a reply from our Washington Headquarters Office on many issues that you have attempted to address. I hope that we will hear back before the end of January.” NOTE: Shortly thereafter, I received a call from the Richmond Public and Indian Housing Director who reiterated that Richmond was waiting for a response from Washington. 2/26/13 or 2/27/13(?) – The Richmond PIH Director stopped by the office for a brief visit. This was the first time that I became aware that our waiver request was still in Richmond and had not gone to Washington. He explained that they were working with Washington on waivers for a similar project with similar issues located in Chesapeake. 3/5/13 – Conducted a conference call with Richmond HUD staff. They confirmed that our waiver request was still in Richmond and based on what was happening with the waivers for Chesapeake, we would likely have to redo ours. I asked for them to provide me with what they knew at that time so that I could begin making a revised request. I asked that they keep me informed regarding the process for Chesapeake and also let me know when they receive approval. They agreed to do so. 3/13/13 – Received a call from VSH informing me that the Chesapeake project received approval on all of its waivers, many of which were similar to waivers requested for The Crossings. 3/18/13 – VSH forwarded copies of the Chesapeake letter requesting waivers and the memo from HUD- Washington approving the waivers. I subsequently spoke with the Director of Chesapeake Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) and learned that although their waivers were approved, the approval was subject to the completion of a Subsidy Layering Review (SLR) which is a statutory requirement and cannot be waived administratively. 3/22/13 - Spoke with Jim Tolbert with the City of Charlottesville who agreed to work with VSH on completing the submission required for the SLR. I also sent an e-mail referencing what may be needed for the review and for a possible revision of the Environmental Review Record to include a mention of project-based vouchers in the project. 3/26/13 – Sent a letter to HUD-Richmond regarding the issues discussed in the 3/5/13 conference call. The letter also requested any future correspondence to be in writing and the immediate identification of any other issues not included in the 3/5 call. MEMO April 1, 2013 updated June 18, 2013 The Crossings – Page 3 UPDATES 4/9/13 – Sent the revised waiver request to HUD-Richmond. 5/1/13 – Sent the Environmental Review Amendment to HUD-Richmond & received automatic response that two of the three addressees received the e-mail. 5/13 or 14/13 – Called Robert Davenport with HUD-Richmond to get a status of our waiver requests. He was not prepared to provide much on the status of our request but he did bring up a new issue indicating that they were concerned that we had already let individuals move into the units. I informed him that we did so with the encouragement of Carrie Schmidt who is the Director of the Richmond HUD office. I requested a written status of the request within a week. I received that on 5/17/13. 5/16/13 – Spoke with Allison Bogdonavic from Virginia Supportive Housing regarding the issue brought up by HUD on individuals already living in the units. During this conversation she mentioned that Kathy McHugh from the City of Charlottesville was questioning whether the City had authority to complete the required Subsidy Layering Review. I later spoke with Kathy and suggested that she seek guidance from Robert Davenport at HUD. On May 28, 2013, Kathy received a response from HUD providing additional guidance on the completion of the SLR. 5/17/13 – Received a letter from Jerryl Bennett, Richmond PIH Director, confirming that they had received my letter from March 26 and waiver request dated April 9. The only status provided was that the requests were under review and that we would be contacted if there were additional questions. 5/31/13 – Received copy of letter to Ann Mallek from Jerry Bennett, Director of PIH acknowledging the County’s letter of April 10. Mr. Bennett stated that “staff in the (County’s) Office of Housing is striving to carefully and responsibly address each of the challenging issues to establish compliance…” This statement seems to say that they are waiting on us although we have provided everything that they have requested to date. 6/11/13 – Met with Kathy McHugh (City), Connie Dunn (CRHA Director), and two representatives from Virginia Supportive Housing to discuss how we can get HUD to review and approve or disapprove the vouchers for The Crossings. This discussion included how we may best approach Deputy Secretary Maurice Jones when we meet with him on Friday (6/14). 6/14/13 – Met, along with City, CRHA, and VSH staff with Deputy Secretary Maurice Jones who seemed very interested in The Crossings and understanding of our issues under review at the Richmond Field Office. He asked specifically about our “deadline” for resolving and I informed him it is August 31. We asked for any assistance that he could provide in getting our waiver request moving and also to expedite a Subsidy Layering Review. We also proposed a second option which may be considered and may be easier to get approval if HUD allows us to treat the project as existing housing. This option would also provide more protection for existing tenants which would address the more recent issue of tenants already occupying the units. He asked to see the development and after his luncheon speech, I transported him to it. He met staff and a resident who is a formerly homeless veteran. Sec. Jones had mentioned the need to do more for homeless vets during his speech. He was appreciative of the opportunity to discuss and see the project and indicated it gives him a better understanding of what we are trying to do. He promised he would get “on this” when he returned to Washington. August 13, 2013 Updates 6/19/13 – HUD requested by email a copy of the Environmental Review Certification which was promptly sent although it had previously been sent. 7/2/13 – HUD requested additional information, specifically a timeline, for the Environmental Review (ER). 7/8/13 – Documents necessary for the Subsidy Layering Review (SLR) were received by the Office of Housing from the City. 7/9/13 – Documents for the SLR were forwarded to HUD’s Richmond Field Office. (FO). 7/16/13 – FO requested additional information for the SLR. 7/17/13 – Office of Housing sent additional SLR information specific to the County to FO. The City, CRHA, and the owners need to submit some additional information. 7/18/13 – Received HUD letter confirming that the County waiver request had been sent to Headquarters but no action would be taken until the completion of the ER and SLR reviews and approval. 7/19/13 – Received letter from HUD requesting significant revisions to the Administrative Plan which was resubmitted in September 2012 after HUD comments received on a previous submission in June 2012. The letter sets forth over 50 items which they apparently overlooked (?) in their first review. 7/24/13 – Sent response to the 7/19 letter challenging the request to include nondiscretionary items in the Administrative Plan. 7/24/13 – Received the additional documents for the SLR from the owner and transmitted those to the FO. 7/31/13 – FO sent a letter to CRHA again requesting information for the SLR which was previously requested on 7/17. 8/1/13 – The City sent additional information from CRHA to the FO. 8/8/13 – Received response to the 7/24 letter challenging HUD’s interpretation of requirements for the Administrative Plan. FO staff made it clear that they expect all of the areas stated in the 7/19 letter to be covered in a revised Plan. 8/9/13 – Sent email to Deputy Secretary Jones requesting any update he may prior to the August 14 Board meeting. 8/13/13 – Sent email to Jerryl Bennett (Richmond) also requesting update on the status of our requests after not being able to connect with anyone by phone for several days. **** I have also had three phone conversations with Bryan Wood from Congressman Hurt’s Washington office. The first was a call I received from him seeking background and detail on issues related to The Crossings. He was going to follow up with his contacts at HUD Headquarters. We agreed to keep each other informed. I made the second call after receiving the 7/19 request for revisions to the Administrative Plan explaining that this was a complete surprise given that the Plan had been sent to HUD ten months ago. His first impression was that this letter could be a result of him contacting HUD officials which had occurred within the prior ten days. The third call was from Mr. Wood on 8/8/13 informing me that he had talked with HUD officials both in Washington and Richmond and they confirmed to him that they had received everything they needed to act of the waiver requests. However, there was no indication of how long it would take for the review and approval to be completed. On September 6, 2013, Mr. Wood facilitated a conference call between the County, HUD’s Richmond Field Office, and HUD Headquarters. Ann Mallek and Rodney Snow participated in this call. Headquarters staff provided more specific information on remaining steps to be taken and agreed to begin reviewing all remaining documents for approval rather than waiting for each individual approval. They confirmed that the Field Office would be in contact with the County on specifics needed for the Environmental Review and Subsidy Layering Review. U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development okEN TOPP Richmond Public Housing Program Centero 0, z 600 E. Broad Street, 3 rd Floor11.1 * 0 9 I- Richmond, VA 23219-4 z0 4, ale 1-800-842-2610 ,IN December 20, 2013 Mr. Ron White Executive Director, Albemarle County Office of Housing (ACOH) 1600 5 th Street Charlottesville, VA 22902- Ms. Constance Dunn Executive Director, Charlottesville Redevelopment & Housing Authority (CRHA) P.O. Box 1405 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Dear Mr. White and Ms. Dunn: SUBJECT: Subsidy Layering Review Albemarle County Office of Housing (ACOH) Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority (CRHA) Crossing Apartments, Charlottesville, Virginia HUD has completed a subsidy layering review for the Crossings Apartments, Charlottesville, Virginia. As you have previously described to HUD, the Crossing Apartments will house low-income residents. The project involves new construction of 60 units and the ACOH and CRHA plans to attach project-based Section 8 assistance to all 30 of the units. HUD's .review was based upon financial documentation submitted by the project owner and the ACOH-and CRHA,.the-Administrative Guidelines published in the Federal Register on — February 25, 1994, and the Revision to the P1-IA Project-Based Assistance Program, Final Rule published in the Federal Register on November 19, 2007 and the Administrative Guidelines, Final Rule published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2010. As a result of the review, HUD is authorizing the rents set by the ACOH and CRHA, which are within the statutory limit. Our Program Center advises ACOH and CRHA that the renewal funding for the ACOH and CRHA would be pursuant to the Continuing Resolution, 2014. Should the total tenant payment for families assisted in the Crossing Apartments result in housing assistance payments (HAP) that exceed the authorized per unit funding level, ACOH and CRHA should ensure that the appropriate adjustments are made in its voucher programs so as to not exceed their available budget authority and net restricted asset balance for the year. The initial gross contract rents are as follows: BR Size Contract Rent Utility Allowance Gross Rent Albemarle County Office of Housing 9-Studios $646.00 $0.00 $646.00 Charlottesville Redevelopment and Housing Authority 21-Studios $646.00 $0.00 $646.00 As part of HUD's subsidy layering review, HUD determined that the proposed project would receive 74 cents per dollar of total low-income housing tax credit allocation in net syndication proceeds as a source of funds. This exceeded the threshold of 51 cents per dollar; therefore, the project_was.not subjected.to.further_re y iew_pursuant.to_Section_102(d) of the HUD. Reform Act or to further Section 911 review. This Office notifies ACOH and CRHA of these results and hereby requires the housing authority and the owner to comply with the following provision: Cost Certification. Housing Assistance Payments under the HAP contract must not be more than necessary, based upon HUD requirements, to provide affordable housing after taking into account other related assistance from other federal, state or local government agencies. Within 90 days of execution of the HAP contract the owner must furnish to this Office, through the housing authority, a schedule of actual final project costs paid compared to the project costs originally budgeted and presented to HUD. A public accountant in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards must audit the schedule of actual project costs paid. If the actual project costs, as shown by the submitted audited schedule, vary from those budgeted and, as a result, would cause housing assistance payments under the HAP Contract to exceed what is necessary to provide affordable housing, adjustments must be made to the amount of the housing assistance payments to the owner. This Office advises the ACOH and CRHA that the Department's approval of subsidy layering for this property is contingent upon the ACOH and CRHA meeting the project-basing réiilãtory reqUirements at 24'CFR 983, inchidiiig-thraplirrwat of dny -re-quired waivers.- - Accordingly, enclosed please find the HUD executed subsidy layering certification. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Robert Davenport, Public Housing Revitalization Specialist for Facilities Management at 804-822-4899. Sincerely, (4,4- erryl F. Bennett Director Enclosure: HUD Executed Subsidy Layering Certification CERTIFICATION REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF HUD ASSISTANCE PROVIDED FOR PROJECTS UTILIZING LOW-INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS Pursuant to regulations at 24 CFR 4.13, I certify that the assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Housing anckUrban Development for the Crossing Apartments, Charlottesville, Virginia, is not more than necessary to provide affordable housing after taking into account other assistance including low-income housing tax credits. This certification is based solely on the information submitted by the applicant and is conditioned on any additional instructions to the State/Area Office as set forth in the attached memorandum. 1/3 Milan zdinec Date Deputy AsiSant Secretary Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs Ron White From: Wood, Bryan [Bryan.Wood©mail.house.gov ], Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 3:50 PM To: Ron White I Subject: RE: The Crossings, Charlottesville, Virginia - Update ! Thanks, Ron. I've been talking to HUD HQ and it sounds like the transition has made getting some information from Richmond more difficult on them. Im pushing to get a better timeline for these last steps from HQ so as soon as I have something, I will send your way. Thanks for the update and let me know if there is anything else we can assist with in the meantime. Bryan From: Ron White [mailto:rwhite2©albemarle.org ] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:38 AM To: Wood, Bryan; Tom Foley; Doug Walker; Jim Tolbert; McHugh, Kathy; Dunn, Constance Subject: FW: The Crossings, Charlottesville, Virginia - Update FYI — Catherine is the replacement for Jerry! although I'm not sure if it is l interim or permanent. The good news is there was an immediate response — something we have not been accustomed . to. From: Lamberg, Catherine D [mailto:Catherine.D.Lamberg@hudmov] Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 9:55 AM To: Ron White Cc: Davenport, Robert F Subject: RE: The Crossings, Charlottesville, Virginia - Update Good morning Mr. White and thank you for your reply. I wanted to reassure you that the Richmond Office of Public Housing rer inains committed to providing you with a response as soon as we possibly can. Mr. Davenport has worked diligently on remaining on top of the status of this request and, while we do not have a specific date in hand, we feel confident that we will have an update prior to your stated deadline of February 5 th , 2014. THANKS Catherine From: Ron White [mailto:rwhite2Palbemarle.orq] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:46 PM To: Davenport, Robert F Cc: Lamberg, Catherine D; Booker, Bonita 5; Young, Kristina A Subject: RE: The Crossings, Charlottesville, Virginia - Update As I noted in our conversation last week, the Board questioned the expected timing of getting the regulatory waiver approvals since we were asking them to invest MORE LOCAL FUNDS to eliminate the possibility of six individuals being evicted and put back on the streets. The County has invested nearly $70,000 to support housing for these formerly homeless persons. Housing the homeless has been both a national priority and a state priority. The fact that the good faith efforts of local government, housing authority, and a nonprofit project owner are trumped by a 22-month process (and ongoing) to get approvals is making it increasingly difficult to ask fOr and receive continued local support. I have been asked to present a report to our Board on February 5 th . While the Board is sympathetic to the potential of placing a project owner in the position of evicting individuals, they also have to balance the needs and priorities of using local funding for this initiative with other important priorities of the County, most of which impact the lives of many more citizens. My job, in addition to providing an update, is to recommend that the Board approve some level of continued local funding but the always-asked question is "How much longer before we can expect approval?". That is a question I have not been able to answer nor do I have information to answer it on February 5 th . I would respectfully ask for a more definitive response from HUD in the next ten days so that I can answer this question or at least provide something more than "I do not know". What would be more appreciated is that HUD would issue the approval on the regulatory waiver request before February 5th. Such information would be wonderful news to give to the Board and to be picked up by the press who put the discussion of one-month funding extension for January at the top of page one in The Daily Progress. It is hard to imagine that the regulatory hurdles would take longer than the two statutory requirements given that in our phone conference call last September HUD agreed to work on a parallel review of the ER, SLR, and regulatory waivers. We appreciate the approvals of the ER and SLR. I hope we can get positive news in the next ten days and trust that the staff in the Richmond Field Office will do everything they can to get a definitive response from Headquarters. From: Davenport, Robert F [mailto:Robert.F.Davennort@hud.gov] Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 4:39 PM To: Ron White Cc: Lamberg, Catherine D; Booker, Bonita S; Young, Kristina A Subject: The Crossings, Charlottesville, Virginia - Update Greeting and Good Day Ron, As a follow up to our phone call last week, the Richmond Public Housing Program Center did have a conference call with Headquarters about the status of request for waivers of project-based voucher (PBV) regulations. Headquarters shared that they are continuing to review of Albemarle RHA request for waivers of PBV regulations associated with The Crossings. Thank you, Robert Davenport Revitalization Specialist - Facilities Management PIH Richmond, VA (804) 822-4899 FAX (804) 822-4990 robert.f.davenport@hud.gov 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Video streaming Board of Supervisors Meetings SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review of previous research on options and resources required for video streaming Board of Supervisors meetings STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Davis, Catlin, Jordan, and Culp PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Board members inquired about the possibility of video streaming Board meetings to increase the transparency of the Board’s activities and to allow individuals who are unable to attend the meetings the opportunity to view the meetings online. After learning that staff conducted research on this topic within the past several years, Board members requested a copy of that research for further discussion. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 6 - Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges DISCUSSION: Video streaming Board meetings was last presented to the Board on November 2, 2011 (Attachment A). As the Board directed, staff has not conducted additional research on this topic except to update the status of video streaming among benchmark communities (Attachment B). While this material provides an understanding of what it would take to implement such a program, specific costs and program options may have changed since this report was completed. BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact of this item would depend on the option that the Board is interested in pursuing, as set forth in Attachment A. There would be startup and ongoing operating budget impacts , and the staffing impact would depend on the level of service desired b y the Board. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board consider the information provided and give staff further guidance regarding video streaming Board meetings. If the Board is interested in pursuing video streaming, staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with researching the most effective and cost-efficient video-on-demand system and include the project as a new initiative for consideration in the upcoming budget process. ATTACHMENTS: A – November 2, 2011 Executive Summary B – Updated benchmark community comparison Return to agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Video streaming Board of Supervisors’ Meetings SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Discussion of options and resources required for video streaming Board of Supervisors meetings STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Foley, Davis, and Culp; and Ms. Catlin and Ms. Jordan LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: November 2, 2011 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Board members recently inquired about the possibility of video streaming Board meetings to increase the transparency of the Board’s activities and to allow individuals who are unable to attend the meetings to view them. This agenda item provides information regarding what other Virginia localities are doing and provides a staff recommendation if Board members would like to pursue the possibility of video streaming the County’s Board meetings. DISCUSSION: To estimate potential citizen interest in video streaming, staff researched Board meeting podcast download trends since Board meeting podcasting began in 2006. As the chart below indicates, there has been a steady and significant increase in the number of podcast downloads in the past five years, with the highest level of downloads occurring in the first quarter of 2011. Based on the first two months of data for the current quarter, the final number for this quarter is expected to surpass that record number. The trend indicates that the public is interested in accessing audio records of Board meetings, particularly since the County provides podcasts within 24 hours of the Board meeting in most instances. Podcasting Trends: YEAR Q1 Jan-Mar Q2 Apr-Jun Q3 Jul-Sep Q4 Oct-Dec 2006 ** ** 167 230 2007 355 903 979 1,259 2008 5,779 6,946 10,192 9,542 2009 11,388 13,440 14,275 15,672 2010 14,435 8,669 2,451 7,483 2011 22,292 19,074 17,776(Jul/Aug) --- Peer Locality Research: In order to assess how Virginia peer localities are approaching video streaming, County staff researched sixteen localities in Virginia that are frequently used by Albemarle County for benchmarking purposes. Of those localities, six are not currently video streaming - Hanover, Augusta, Bedford, Rockingham, Frederick and Spotsylvania. Ten are video streaming either alone or in combination with cable television to broadcast their meetings. The table below provides details on these ten jurisdictions: Jurisdiction Population Cable Broadcast Video Stream Archives Stafford 128,961 Live/Playback Live/Playback X Roanoke 92,376 Live/Playback Playback X Montgomery 94,392 Playback Playback X James City 67,009 Live/Playback Playback X Charlottesville 43,475 Live/Playback Live/Playback X Louisa 33,158 N/A Playback X Henrico 306,935 N/A Playback X AGENDA TITLE: Video streaming Board of Supervisors’ Meetings November 2, 2011 Page 2 Loudoun 312,311 Playback Playback X Fairfax 1,081,726 Live/Playback Playback X Prince William 402,002 N/A Playback X All ten localities provide a “video-on-demand” service. “Video-on-demand” includes the live video and/or the ability to view recorded meetings “on demand.” Seven of the ten localities used cable broadcast capabilities prior to initiating video streaming. Having the cable franchise in place beforehand helped reduce the initial costs for the video streaming service with regard to equipment purchase, staff training, and other operational requirements. The ten localities procure outside services with a range of costs to provide full video streaming capability to their website users. There doesn’t seem to be a favored service provider. The most expensive services provide a function that connects specific agenda items to the appropriate video section. This feature allows viewers to fast forward or skip entire sections and thereby view only the agenda items they prefer. Currently the County is using a Board agenda system developed with in-house resources that could work in combination with either of the video streaming systems described below. The following information provides several cost options to give the Board an idea of the magnitude of the expense associated with this service. (Costs are approximate and would need to be further defined based on direction provided by the Board): Granicus o $ 8,175.00 onetime start up cost for software o $ 500.00 onetime purchase of cameras (three portable cameras) o $ 13,920.00 annual recurring cost o Staff resources – This service would require staff training and resources during the meeting to video the proceedings and after the meeting to post the video online Peg Central/Leightronix o $ 18,778.00 onetime start up cost for software (includes three portable cameras) o $ 4,700.00 annual recurring cost o Staff resources – This service would require staff training and resources during the meeting to video the proceedings and after the meeting to post the video online Both options provide three portable cameras. Typically, one camera is set up facing the audience, one camera is set up facing the Board, and the third camera is either set up facing the Board to provide a larger view of the Board, or it is used as a back-up if one of the first two cameras fail. While the exact staffing impact is difficult to calculate precisely due to unknown length of Board meetings, at a minimum, one person who is knowledgeable in operating video equipment would be responsible to be present at the Board meeting to assure the cameras are operating correctly, to switch the video stream view to capture the speakers and the overhead presentations, and to assure that the video stream is going out. In addition, that person would spend approximately one hour prior to the Board meeting to set up the equipment, and approximately one hour after the Board meeting to dismantle the equipment. Time would also be required after each meeting to post the video on the County website. The cameras are portable, which would allow video streaming to be used for other meetings in the County Office Building. However, there may be additional fees associated with those uses. Currently there is no funding allocated for video streaming Board meetings and there are no staff resources currently identified to assume those additional responsibilities. Staff considered the use of volunteers, but recommends against that due to the need for a reliable, consistent resource to ensure the timely and professional delivery of the service. All of the localities that staff researched are using staff or cable company resources to run the cameras and provide post -processing services. A new staffing resource would need to be identified to handle the new responsibilities that would be creat ed by video streaming. AGENDA TITLE: Video streaming Board of Supervisors’ Meetings November 2, 2011 Page 3 BUDGET IMPACT: The budget impact of this item would depend on the option that the Board is interested in pursuing as set forth above. There would be start up and operating budget impacts, and the staff ing impact would depend on the level of service desired by the Board. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board consider the information provided and provide staff further guidance regarding the video streaming of Board meetings. If the Board is interested in pursuing video streaming, staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with researching the best possible video-on-demand system and include the project as a new initiative in the upcoming operating budget process. January 10, 2014 Jurisdiction Population (2010 Census) Availability of Audio/Video of BOS Meetings Cable Broadcast Video Stream Archive Options Available for Later Playback Arlington 207,627 YES NO YES YES Augusta 73,750 NO NO NO NO Bedford County 68,676 NO NO NO NO Buckingham 17,146 NO NO NO NO Charlottesville 43,475 YES YES YES YES Chesterfield 316,236 YES YES YES YES Cable Live, Video Playback Fairfax 1,081,726 YES YES YES YES Fauquier 65,203 YES YES NO YES Cable Playback, Public Library Archives Fluvanna 25,691 NO NO NO YES Frederick 78,305 YES NO YES YES Video Playback Greene 18,403 NO NO NO NO Hanover 99,863 NO NO NO NO Henrico 306,935 YES NO YES YES James City 67,009 YES YES YES YES Video Playback Loudoun 312,311 YES YES YES YES Cable LIve Louisa 33,153 YES NO YES YES Montgomery 94,392 YES YES YES YES Cable Playback, Video Playback Nelson 15,020 NO NO NO NO Orange 33,481 YES NO YES YES Video Playback Pittsylvania 63,506 NO NO NO NO Prince William 402,002 YES NO YES YES Roanoke City 97,032 YES YES YES YES Video Playback Roanoke County 92,376 YES YES YES YES Rockingham 76,314 NO NO NO NO Spotsylvania 122,397 YES YES NO NO Stafford 128,961 YES YES YES YES York 65,464 YES YES YES YES COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Water Resource Protection Mandates Community Engagement Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposed plan for informing the public and seeking input regarding funding options for meeting water resource protection mandates STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Letteri, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Catlin, Graham, Shadman, and Harper PRESENTER (S): Lee Catlin LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: On January 8, 2014, the Board directed staff to develop a process to inform the public and to seek input on preferences for funding mandated enhancements to two separate water resource protection programs. The attached proposal (Attachment A) outlines processes for obtaining community feedback on mandates related to both programs, including: (1) meeting additional responsibilities due to changes to the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP), and (2) complying with new requirements under the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 4: Protect the County’s parks and its natural, scenic and historic resources in accordance with the County’s established growth management policies Goal 6 - Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges DISCUSSION: The attached draft plan (Attachment A) follows the outline of the County’s administrative guidelines for community engagement and reflects direction provided by the Board to this point, with the understanding that the Board will want to thoroughly discuss and provide its guidance as to any desired revisions or restructuring of the engagement process. As suggested by the guidelines, the plan identifies critical issues, level of public engagement, public engagement goals, stakeholders, roles and responsibilities, participation activities , and feedback loop. The plan represents a visible commitment by the County to a predictable and transparent process for engaging the community on critical water quality issues and incorporates all elements that would be required of any proposal going through a County approval process. A specific calendar of activities and events will be established following the Board’s action on the plan. Highlights of the plan include: Separation of the engagement process into two components – While there is some overlap between the two programs described above in that they both deal with water resources, they are, in reality, two separate issues in terms of scope and impact. The VSMP program includes a proposal to increase development fees to pay for the cost of specific County services related to active land development projects, so a targeted outreach that is focused and short -term in nature is appropriate. The MS4 program is much broader in nature and encompasses the need to implement strategies to minimize adverse water resources impacts from all County citizens and property owners, so a longer term, more inclusive community process to determine a permanent dedicated funding source is appropriate. Reliance on an interim funding mechanism until community preferences can be established – The Board adopted a Five Year Plan in December 2014 that included anticipated revenues and additional staffing resources for the County’s MS4 program , which will have a funding impact in the upcoming FY 14-15 budget. The mandated obligations and funding impact will need to be addressed before there is an opportunity for a full community engagement process and the Board’s selection of the best option among the general fund, service district, or a stormwater utility. Using the general fund as an interim funding solution is AGENDA TITLE: Water Resource Protection Mandates Community Engagement Plan February 5, 2014 Page 2 the least complicated mechanism to allow the County to fund its mandates, while community and Board preference for a more permanent dedicated funding solution is determined. Appointment of a short term stakeholder advisory committee – Because the complicated nature of the new requirements of the MS4 program creates the need for sustained community engagement throughout an ongoing education and recommendation development process, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors establish a short-term stakeholders advisory committee. An advisory committee, which would not be a permanent, ongoing group, but rather would fulfill its responsibility and be disbanded following the development of a recommendation to the Board, would help ensure broad- based and informed input into the decision making process. In combination with the advisory committee, the plan recommends education and outreach opportunities to the general public, as well as more targeted stakeholder groups. The advisory committee approach proved very successful as an efficient way to obtain critical community feedback at important milestones during the new Crozet Library design process and has been employed by nearby jurisdictions to reach decisions on funding issues for similar programs, including Charlottesville and Harrisonburg. Please see Attachment B for more information. Consideration of consultant assistance - The dedication of necessary time and the level of knowledge and expertise required to facilitate discussions of the advisory committee on the complex technical and financing issues related to the MS4 program particularly is beyond County staff’s current capacity. Staff recommends engaging a technical consultant, as has been the approach of other peer communities. Please see Attachment B for more information. BUDGET IMPACT: Much of the work required to implement the Community Engagement Plan, as proposed, can be accomplished using existing County staff. If the Board supports the recommendation to engage a consultant having technical and financing expertise to facilitate public discussions related to the MS4 program, staff will develop a detailed scope of services, along with an estimated cost for those services to bring back to the Board for further consideration. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board provide guidance as to any desired changes in the engagement plan and direct staff to implement the final plan. Staff also recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with developing both a scope of services and estimated costs for a technical consultant to support work related to the MS4 program and a charge and appointment process for an advisory committee and return to the Board for consideration at the earliest date possible. ATTACHMENTS: A – Community Engagement Plan B – Summary of Comparison Communities Return to agenda Draft Public Participation Plan – Water Quality Mandates Project Community Engagement Plan – Meeting Water Resource Protection Mandates, January 2014 Project Description: This project involves engaging the community regarding new State mandates pertaining to two separate water resource protection programs that will result in increased costs for County residents and businesses. Program 1 - dealing with additional responsibilities due to changes to the Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) that will impact the development community. Program 2 - ensuring that the County will maintain compliance with increasing requirements under the County’s Municipal Small Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit that potentially will impact all local residents and businesses. Milestones and Decisions by the Board to date: Directed staff to bring back proposal for 100% cost recovery via development review fees for new VSMP program requirements Approved additional water resources staffing during most recent Five Year Plan process Endorsed revised Water Protection Ordinance Program 1 – Additional Requirements and Responsibilities under the VSMP Critical Issues: Complexity of combined water resource protection issues makes it hard for people to understand Budget impact if fees are not increased at the proposed level Increased compliance costs facing developers, including meeting new submittal requirements, new technical criteria and new responsibilities in reporting and recordkeeping Increased fees facing developers July 1, 2014 implementation date could be postponed by the General Assembly Level of Public Participation: Information and input/consultation- assist the public in understanding the problems, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions, seek their feedback Public Participation Goals: Establish understanding of state requirements and resources required by the County to meet legal mandates, including timeline Provide opportunity for community reaction to new requirements including fee increases Disseminate community input to ultimate decision makers for their consideration Keep developers informed about the new requirements, including fee increases as they move through the review process Meet deadlines required to resolve issue within this year’s annual budget process timeframe Stakeholders: Development community Environmental advocacy groups Water quality organizations Interested members of the public Town of Scottsville Draft Public Participation Plan – Water Quality Mandates Project Roles and Responsibilities: Staff – Work with the development community and other interested stakeholders to provide information about new procedures, new submittal requirements, additional responsibilities, and the new fee structure; provide adequate opportunities for community feedback; communicate feedback to the ultimate decision makers. Planning Commission - While the Planning Commission has no official decision-making role in this process, the results of this process will be communicated to the Commission. Board of Supervisors – The Board has the final decision making authority for approving the development review fee structure. Public Participation Activities: Information on the website and distributed via outreach mechanisms like AMail, website, and traditional media Roundtables with stakeholder representatives Targeted outreach to the Chamber of Commerce, Free Enterprise Forum, Blue Ridge Homebuilders, and other development community entities Public hearing required before the Board adopts the revised Water Protection Ordinance, including the new fees Program 2 – Maintaining Compliance with Increased MS4 Permit Requirements Critical Issues: Complexity of various evolving water resource protection issues makes it difficult for people to understand Funding must be recommended in budget in the next several weeks; recommended use of general fund as an interim solution Select a permanent, dedicated, funding solution Must maintain compliance with requirements of MS4 permit Level of Public Participation: Information and involvement- work directly with the public to ensure that issues and concerns are understood and considered, and are directly reflected in the recommended options; establish and work with short-term stakeholder advisory committee Public Participation Goals: Meet internal deadlines required to resolve the funding issue in advance of 2016 Five Year Plan process Establish understanding of current County water resources programs Establish understanding of mandated requirements and resources required by the County to meet legal mandates, including timeline Provide clarity on options for funding the required program enhancements, including the general fund, or establishing a service district or a storm water utility Provide opportunity for general community reaction to potential options Work with short-term stakeholder committee to develop recommendation for the Board Disseminate community input to ultimate decision makers for their consideration Keep public informed about the potential options as they move through the review process Draft Public Participation Plan – Water Quality Mandates Project Stakeholders: Large property owners Community advisory councils or homeowners associations Business community Farm Bureau Soil and Water Conservation District and other water resources entities Environmental organizations Faith community UVA Charlottesville General public Roles and Responsibilities: Staff – Work with consultant, stakeholder committee and the community to prepare a final recommendation to present to the Board for its approval; ensure the effectiveness of the public participation process; provide review and recommendations to the ultimate decision makers in accordance with established county policies and plans; and keep the community informed about progress of the plan through the review process Consultant – Work with staff, the stakeholder committee and the community to educate and identify options for the final recommendation, facilitate discussions of the stakeholder committee on technical and financing issues, honor public input, and communicate how public input has shaped decisions about the project Stakeholder Committee – Staff recommends that the Board establish a committee to ensure representation and engagement of identified stakeholder groups as the primary method of achieving broad based public engagement consistent with Strategic Plan Goal 6 - Promote individual responsibility and citizen ownership of community challenges. The stakeholder committee will be advisory in nature and will be charged with a) providing direction and advice on engaging the general public , including direct interaction; b) considering and balancing the concerns and issues of the affected stakeholders and building public consensus for committee recommendations; c) working with the consultant and staff to develop a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on a final preferred option. The committee’s charge, membership, selection criteria, organization and operations will be developed pending the Board’s approval of this concept , similar to the functioning of the Crozet Library Design Steering Committee. Planning Commission - While the Planning Commission has no official decision-making role in this process, the results of this process will be communicated to the Commission Board of Supervisors – The Board has the final decision making authority for approving the MS4 program funding mechanism Public Participation Activities: Stakeholder committee Public open house opportunities Community advisory council meeting Materials provided via website and other outreach mechanisms Targeted outreach to stakeholder groups like faith community, businesses, etc. Targeted outreach to rural area residents/businesses Public hearings The Feedback Loop for both Programs: This plan will ensure dissemination of public input to decision-makers and back to the public at large to demonstrate how comments and concerns have been recorded and understood and accurately Draft Public Participation Plan – Water Quality Mandates Project communicated. It will also show the public how their input has been translated and how it influenced the outcome of the process. Examples of the feedback loop include: The website will be kept up to date on all meetings and other events All comments generated at public meetings will be recorded and available for review on the county website and will be available for decision-makers during their review All notices of public meetings will be posted on the website. These meetings will be open to the public. Press releases and other materials will be distributed as appropriate to inform the community about the progress of the project. Summary of Stormwater Funding for Comparable and Nearby Local Governments Local Government Actively working towards the implementation of a dedicated funding source? Use of an outside consultant? Decision-making process. Stafford County Phase (Phase II MS4) No. Using General Fund and CIP for TMDL projects; may consider a service district but not currently moving forward. No N/A James City County (Phase II MS4) Not actively, although there have been informal discussions. No N/A Hanover County (Phase II MS4) Had considered a utility and service district. Decided to stay with “revenue enhancement” in the budget and CIP for stormwater projects. No N/A Roanoke County (Phase II MS4; outside the Chesapeake Bay watershed) Yes. Yes: AMEC Citizens Advisory Committee will develop program and funding proposal, conduct public meetings in early 2014, and then make recommendations to BOS in summer. Fauquier County (not MS4) No. N/A N/A Spotsylvania County (not MS4) No longer an MS4 community (as of December 2013). No public properties lie within US Census- designated urban areas. N/A N/A City of Charlottesville (Phase II MS4) Implemented Utility Fee in 2013. Yes: AMEC A permanent Citizen’s Advisory Committee was established last year to evaluate program needs and provide input on funding mechanism and credit system. City of Waynesboro (Phase II MS4) Not yet. As a new MS4 community, just starting to look a program needs. Yes: Wiley Wilson Has had long-term Stormwater and Flood Commission which will likely be used to consider options and advise Council. City of Staunton (Phase II MS4) Implemented Utility Fee in 2010 to fund flood control improvements. Yes: Draper Aden Did not have advisory committee. City of Harrisonburg (Phase II MS4) Yes. Yes: Draper Aden Recently established a Stormwater Advisory Committee which will develop program strategic plan and consider a stormwater enterprise (utility). Local Government Actively working towards the implementation of a dedicated funding source? Use of an outside consultant? Decision-making process. Isle of Wright County (Phase II MS4) Implemented Utility Fee in 2013. Yes: Arcadis County conducted public outreach to citizen leagues and active groups after working with consultants to develop an appropriate funding plan. Loudon County (Phase II MS4) Not really. Has an ongoing Water Resources TAC that is asking the BOS if they want to move forward with looking into different funding mechanisms. Program funding from General Fund. Has an ongoing TAC which advises on various policy issues. Prince William County (Phase I MS4) Implemented Utility Fee in 1994. Yes: CH2MHill Fairfax County (Phase I MS4) Implemented Service District in 2009. Indirectly, through a utility study. Stormwater advisory committee is no longer active. In the past, made recommendations to BOS regarding funding stormwater programs. Arlington County (Phase I MS4) Implemented Service District in 2009. Yes: AMEC Stormwater advisory committee is no longer active. In the past, made recommendations to BOS regarding program levels and funding. City of Alexandria (Phase II MS4) Dedicated a fixed portion of General Fund to Stormwater Management Fund in 2010. Yes: AMEC COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Annual review of Community Development Department’s priorities with Board of Supervisors STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, Cilimberg, McCulley, Brooks, and Fritz PRESENTER (S): Mark Graham LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Each year, the Community Development Department provides the Board and public with a summary of major projects, progress on initiatives and achievements, as well as an overview of workload measures and a synopsis of proposed projects to be undertaken by the Department over the following 12 to 18 months. The purpose of this agenda item is to review the Community Development Department’s activities of the past year and request the Board’s direction on priorities for 2014. On February 6, 2013, the Board approved the priorities for the 2013 work program. A copy of the 2013 work program is provided as Attachment A. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 7: Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service. DISCUSSION: 2013 Development Activity Staff typically provides a five year history of the department workload as part of this report. This year, staff has extended this history to six years, as this allows the new Board members to compare current workloads to 2008, which was the last year before the recession. The departmental workload measures provided as Attachment B illustrate the degree to which development activity has increased over the time period relative to staffing resources available. It is notable that during this period of increased activity, the Community Development Department has continued to improve in reaching established goals with key performance measures while maintaining staffing levels. This trend suggests several important contributing factors including staff’s focus on providing excellent customer service, an overall attention to process improvements and efficiency, and extensive relevant work experience among staff members. Clearly, the County’s ability to recruit and retain highly qualified staff has been critical to the department’s productivity success. Nevertheless, it must be noted that as development activity continues its upward trend, the corresponding increased workload will continue to limit staff time available for work program priorities going forward. 2013 Work Program The 2013 Community Development work program was established in February 2013 with the following priorities: 1. Comprehensive Plan Update – The Planning Commission completed its work in August 2013 and a draft was presented to the Board in September 2013. 2. Stormwater Management – State mandated program changes were endorsed by the Board in January 2014. Staff anticipates adoption of these changes in the second quarter of 2014, with implementation on July 1, 2014. 3. Economic Vitality Action Plan – a. Industrial Uses Phase 3 – The Zoning Text Amendment was approved by the Board in April 2013. b. Industrial Uses Phase 4 – Potential land use changes will be based on the updated Comprehensive Plan, c. Ministerial Process Changes – The Subdivision Text Amendment was approved by the Board in December 2013. AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program February 5, 2014 Page 2 d. Legislative Process Changes – The Zoning Text Amendment was adopted by the Board in 2012 and became effective April 1, 2013. 4. Steep Slopes – The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Zoning and Subdivision Text Amendments on January 28, 2014 and anticipates the Board will hold a public hearing in March 2014. 5. Wireless Policy and Ordinance Changes – The study has been completed. Phase 1 of the changes was adopted by the Board in May 2013. Phase 2 has been delayed and is being proposed as part of the 2014 work program with some modifications. 6. Inoperable Motor Vehicles – The Zoning Text Amendment and Amendment to Chapter 9 of the County Code were approved by the Board in November 2013. 7. Noise Regulations – The Zoning Text Amendment and Amendment to Chapter 7 of the County Code were adopted by the Board in September 2013. 8. Rural Areas Churches / Rural Area Uses – The priority and schedule for this Zoning Text Amendment has been deferred for consideration as part of the Comprehensive Plan implementation. 9. Zoning Ordinance Recodification – This was a major task which was recommended for 2013. It has been deferred due to limited staff availability. 10. Architectural Review Board (ARB) Design Guidelines Update – This was deferred due to limited staff availability. 11. Natural Heritage Committee Modeling – The Committee requested modeling; however, there is limited staff and funding available. 12. Neighborhood Model Amendments – The implementation of Neighborhood Model into the Zoning Ordinance has been deferred due to limited staff availability. Three additional ordinance amendments were considered by the Board: 1. Dam Break Inundation Zones – State-mandated Zoning and Subdivision Text Amendments establishing procedures and standards for proposed development dam break inundation zones were adopted by the Board in December 2013. 2. Family Day Homes – A Zoning Text Amendment to have County regulations more closely match State licensing for family day homes, while simplifying application processes, was adopted by the Board in September 2013. 3. Downtown Crozet District – A Zoning Text Amendment to expand residential development opportunities in downtown Crozet was adopted by the Board in December 2013. 2014 Work Program Community Development’s work program for policy-related matters is typically driven by two factors. First, staff resources are allocated to code enforcement and other mandated requirements. Once the resource needs of those core functions are met, work program priorities are staffed and addressed based on remaining resources. Second, the amount of public participation affects resource demands and capacity to undertake projects and initiatives. Public participation is essential for quality products and public trust, but it is also time consuming and resource intensive. Staff attempts to designate the amount of public participation based on the nature of the initiative, with a more extensive process used for potentially controversial decisions. Staff’s recommended 2014 Work Program is provided as Attachment C. In drafting the proposed work program, staff has prioritized initiatives based on: 1) mandates, 2) existing County policy, 3) ongoing efforts, and 4) Board direction on new initiatives. Staff’s prioritization reflects previous Board input and ongoing priorities that it had previously established and is more fully described below: 1. Comprehensive Plan Update – Staff anticipates the Board will act on the update by July 2014. Recognizing the large number of strategies in the Comprehensive Plan and anticipating that the Board will be interested in immediately starting work on implementing some of the strategies, staff has set a placeholder for half of the anticipated resources for these strategies in the second half of 2014. This is in addition to staff resources that will be required in the first half of 2014 as part of the Board’s consideration. Previous year priorities for Economic Vitality and Rural Area uses are anticipated to be prioritized with the other strategies. 2. Stormwater Management – Staff anticipates the updated Water Protection Ordinance will be presented to the Board to consider for adoption in April or May. Additional staff work for public AGENDA TITLE: Community Development Work Program February 5, 2014 Page 3 engagement in advance of this is included. Implementation will require significant engineering management time as new staff are hired and trained. 3. Steep Slopes – This is a carryover from 2013. Staff anticipates these text amendments will be presented to the Board to consider for adoption in March 2014. 4. Wireless Policy and Ordinance Changes – Part 2 is a carryover from 2013. Staff is recommending dividing the remaining work into two parts (2A and 2B) and deferring proceeding with Part 2B until a pending FCC rulemaking regarding the deployment of wireless facilities is completed. Staff recommends moving forward with Part 2A for certain issues not expected to be affected by the FCC action. Part 2B, for the remaining issues, would then proceed when the FCC’s regulatory changes are known. 5. Flood Hazard Overlay District – Mandated update to the County’s regulations in order for property to be able to continue to be covered under the National Flood Insurance Program. 6. Cash Proffer Policy – The Cash Proffer Policy is part of the Comprehensive Plan. In fall 2013, the Board indicated its preference for separating this issue from the rest of the Comprehensive Plan update and accelerating its review as a separate priority. If the Board wishes to consider the cash proffer policy as a separate priority, staff anticipates it will not be completed before the Board acts on the Comprehensive Plan update and may require diverting resources from other efforts. As a separate process, the Board would adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan and refer the matter to the Commission. Regardless, a public input process (through the Commission and/or roundtables) is considered important to the results of the process and will necessarily require additional time to finalize the policy. Alternatively, if the Board prefers to keep the cash proffer policy consideration as part of the Comprehensive Plan update, staff recommends that we focus resources in the near term on initiating and completing three relatively minor text amendments making relatively small and simple process improvements that could be enacted by the Board prior to July 1st. These process improvements are related to drive-thru windows, parking garages, and outdoor display regulations. It should be noted that these uses have a well established set of conditions which can be codified, and the uses would still be subject to review by the ARB along Entrance Corridors, assuring design issues can be considered by the ARB. Resource Limited Initiatives – The following are proposed initiatives to be added to the work program as time is available. 1. Zoning Ordinance Recodification 2. ARB Design Guidelines Update 3. Natural Heritage Committee Modeling 4. Neighborhood Model Amendments 5. Building and Subdivision Fees – Biennial review of fees was established by policy with prior fee changes and a review of these fees is overdue under that policy. A separate review of the Cash Proffer Policy will delay this review. BUDGET IMPACT: The work program is intended to rely on available staff resources. With the exception of additional public hearing costs, no budget impact is anticipated. This analysis does not consider any “soft” costs (e.g., public confidence in County processes). . RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board review the proposed 2014 Work Program (Attachment C) and concur with its prioritization or identify desired changes. Staff also requests the Board indicate whether there is interest in a separate priority for the Cash Proffer Policy at this time or prefer to consider this as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. ATTACHMENTS A-2013 Work Program B-2013 Community Development Workload Measures C-Proposed 2014 Work Program Priorities Return to agenda 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM - Approved February 2013 Feb 5, 2014 Board Report Attachment A STATUS 2012 2013 2014 2015 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comp Plan Comp Plan Update With Planning Commission *** Placeholder for Implementation Master Plans Places 29 5 year Update Adopted in 2011, update in 2016 Rivanna - 5 year Update Adopted in 2010, update in 2015 Crozet Update Updated in 2011, next in 2016 Pantops - 5year update Adopted in 2008, update in 2013 Southern Urban With Comp Plan Update Advisory Councils ONGOING Econ Vitality LI Uses Original Schedule PHASE 1 COMPLETE PHASE 2, COMPLETE PHASE 3, With Board PHASE 4, Comp Plan Implementation * Process Impvovements Minsterial- Site Plans Complete Ministerial - Subdivision Delayed Legislative Complete Other MPO, PACC, Etc ONGOING Initiatives Dam Safety - State Mandate START - State Mandate Stormwater Management START - State Mandate Wireless, Phase 1 Wireless, Phase 2 Critical Slopes Conecpt Reviewed **** RA Uses - Churches Comp Plan Implementation RA Uses - Part 2 Comp Plan Implementation Noise Amendments Resource Limited ** Inoperative Vehicles Resource Limitied ** Zoning Ord Recodification Resource Limited ** ARB - Updated Design Guide Resource Limited ** Natural Heritage Modeling Resource Limited ** Neighborhood Model Amendments Reource Limited ** LEGEND * Phase 4 is placeholder for Targeted Industry and Comp Plan Strategies, Staff Work ** Resource limited indicates staff priorities as resources become available Planning Commision Work *** Comp Plan schedule was slightly delayed with 2012 by review of priorities Board Work **** Critical Slopes switches with RA Churches, RA Churches placeholder for 2012 following Legis Process Changes 2014 Community Development Work Program Attachment B 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 FTEs Staffing - FTEs 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 FY 13 Expenditures - $ Million Community Development Expenses & Revenues Expenses Revenues 2014 Community Development Work Program Attachment B 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 # of Applkications Building Permits Applications 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 # / FTE Building Permit Applications per FTE Applications / Building Inspector Applications / Zoning Inspector Applications / intake Specialist 2014 Community Development Work Program Attachment B 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ARB Applications - 2013 ARB Applications 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ARB Applications / Planner - 2013 ARB Applications per Planner 2014 Community Development Work Program Attachment B 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 # of Applications per Year Total Site Plan & Subdivision Applications 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Site Plan or Subdivision Applications per FTE 2014 Community Development Work Program Attachment B 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Applications per Year Rezoning or Special Use Permit Applications 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Applkications per Planner Rezoning or Special Use Permit Applications / Planner 2014 Community Development Work Program Attachment B 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Applications per Year Water Protection Ordinance Applications 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Applications per Engineer or Inspector WPO Applications per Engineer / Inspector WPO Applications / Engineer WPO Applications / Inspector 2014 Community Development Work Program Attachment B 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Violations or Applications Zoning Workload Zoning Violations Home Occ Permits Zoning Clearances Sign Permits 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Violations per Inspector Zoning Violations / Inspector 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM - Proposed February 2014 Attachment C STATUS 2014 2015 2016 201& 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Comp Plan Comp Plan Update Board Consideration Placeholder for Implementation Proffer Policy (if not w/ Comp Plan update) * Master Plans Places 29 5 year Update Adopted in 2011, update in 2016 Rivanna - 5 year Update Adopted in 2010, update in 2015 Crozet Update Updated in 2011, next in 2016 Pantops - 5year update Adopted in 2008, update in 2013 Southern Urban Schedule with Comp Plan Strategies Advisory Councils ONGOING Econ Vitality LI Uses Original Schedule PHASE 1 COMPLETE PHASE 2, COMPLETE PHASE 3, COMPLETE PHASE 4, Schedule w/ Comp Plan Strategies Review Process Process Impvovements Minsterial- Site Plans COMPLETE Ministerial - Subdivision COMPLETE Legislative COMPLETE Building Permit Fees Subdivision Fees Zoning Fees Drive Thru SPs * Outdoor Display SP * Parking Garage SP * Other Other MPO, PACC, Etc ONGOING Initiatives Flood Hazard Overlay Federally mandated changes Stormwater Management Submitted Wireless, Phase 2A Delayed Wireless, Phase 2B ***TBD - FCC Notice of Rulemaking Critical Slopes At Planning Commission RA Uses - Churches Schedule w/ Comp Plan Strategies RA Uses - Part 2 Schedule w/ Comp Plan Strategies Noise Amendments COMPLETE Inoperative Vehicles COMPLETE Zoning Ord Recodification Resource Limited ** ARB - Updated Design Guide Resource Limited ** Natural Heritage Modeling Resource Limited ** Neighborhood Model Amendments Reource Limited ** LEGEND * Prior to Comp Plan adoption, staff offers an alternative of beginning work on updated proffer policy or three process improvements Staff Work ** Resource limited indicates staff priorities as resources become available Planning Commision Work *** FCC may limit County's ability to regulate towers beyond what is part of 2A Board Work Memorandum ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Members, Board of Supervisors FROM: Travis O. Morris, Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: January 30, 2014 SUBJECT: Boards and Commissions Vacancy and Reappointment List ______________________________________________________________________________ Attached, please find an updated listing of vacancies for boards and commissions through January 30, 2014. Appointments that need to be made at this time are to the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee, Pantops Community Advisory Council and the Places 29 Community Advisory Council. Listed below are the names and term expiration dates of individuals who wish to be appointed to the respective committees: Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: One vacancy RD “Peppy” Winchel David van Roijen Pantops Community Advisory Council: Five vacancies Diane Berlin Michael Shareck Robin Hester Places 29 Community Advisory Council: Four vacancies Peter Borches David Bashline David Wayland MEMBER TERM EXPIRES NEW TERM EXPIRES WISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED? DISTRICT IF MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENT Acquisitions of Conservation Easements (ACE)Bill Edgerton 8/1/2012 8/1/2013 No Advertised, No applications recv'd ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross Stevens 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 waiting for response Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Steve Murray 4/17/2012 4/17/2016 No Advertised, No applications recv'd Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Mark Gorlinsky 5/5/2010 4/17/2014 Resigned Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council David van Roijen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible Agricultural & Forestal District Advisory Council Robin Mellen 4/17/2013 4/17/2017 Ineligible Albemarle County Service Authority Liz Palmer 12/31/2013 12/31/2017 No, (Samuel Miller)Advertised, No applications recv'd Crozet Community Advisory Council Kim Guenther 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Yes Advertised, 1 application recv'd Crozet Community Advisory Council Brenda Plantz 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Yes Crozet Community Advisory Council Philip Best 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Yes Crozet Community Advisory Council Meg West 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 No Crozet Community Advisory Council Nancy Virginia Bain 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Ineligible Crozet Community Advisory Council Leslie Burns 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Yes Crozet Community Advisory Council George Barlow 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Yes Crozet Community Advisory Council William (Bill) Schrader 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Ineligible Crozet Community Advisory Council Following application received: David Stoner Equalization Board Virginia Gardner 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 No, (White Hall)Advertised, No applications recv'd Equalization Board William Rich 12/31/2013 12/31/2014 No, (Rio) Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Craig Evans 7/8/2013 7/8/2015 Ineligible Advertised, 2 applications recv'd Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Following application received: RD "Peppy" Winchel David van Roijen Natural Heritage Committee Diana Foster 9/30/2011 9/30/2015 No Advertised, 1 application recv'd Natural Heritage Committee DeMellon Forest 9/30/2012 9/30/2016 No Natural Heritage Committee Jim Byrom 9/30/2012 Resigned Natural Heritage Committee Christopher Dumler 9/30/2013 Resigned Natural Heritage Committee Brian Morse 9/30/2013 9/30/2017 waiting for response Natural Heritage Committee Following application received: RD "Peppy" Winchel Pantops Community Advisory Council Kirk Bowers 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No Advertised, 3 applications recv'd Pantops Community Advisory Council Wendy Fisher 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No Pantops Community Advisory Council Joe Milby 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No Pantops Community Advisory Council Rita Krenz 6/30/2013 6/30/2016 No Pantops Community Advisory Council Amy Preddy 6/30/2014 Resigned Pantops Community Advisory Council Following applications received: Michael Shareck Diane Berlin Robin Hester Places 29 Community Advisory Council Whit Faulconer 1/31/2014 1/31/2016 Resigned Advertised, 3 applications recv'd Places 29 Community Advisory Council Tim Kaczmarek 1/31/2014 1/31/2016 Yes Places 29 Community Advisory Council George Larie 1/31/2014 1/31/2016 Yes Places 29 Community Advisory Council Charles Lebo 1/31/2014 1/31/2016 Yes Places 29 Community Advisory Council Christopher Lee 1/31/2014 1/31/2016 No Places 29 Community Advisory Council Cynthia Neff 1/31/2014 1/31/2016 Yes Places 29 Community Advisory Council Jeff Pixton 1/31/2014 1/31/2016 No Places 29 Community Advisory Council Jane Williamson 1/31/2014 1/31/2016 Yes Places 29 Community Advisory Council Following application received: Peter Borches David Bashline David Wayland Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Bonnie Brewer 3/5/2014 3/5/2016 Yes Advertised, 1 application recv'd Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Lloyd Wood 3/5/2014 3/5/2016 Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee John Springett 3/5/2014 3/5/2016 Resigned Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Kimberly Higgins 3/5/2014 3/5/2016 Ineligible Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Richard Hewitt 3/5/2014 3/5/2016 Police Department Citizens Advisory Committee Following application received: Gary Grant Social Services Board Martin Burks 12/31/2013 12/31/2017 Eligible, (Rio)Advertised, No applications recv'd Social Services Board Lincoln Lewis 12/31/2015 Resigned (Rivanna) Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Cyndi Burton 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Yes Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Betsy Gohdes-Baten 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Yes Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Neil Means 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Yes Village of Rivanna Community Advisory Council Dottie Martin 3/31/2014 3/31/2016 Yes Revised 1/30/2014 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2014 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,915,287.87 and approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2014069, #2014071, #2014072, #2014073, #2014074, #2014075, #2014076, #2014077, #2014078, and #2014079 for local government and school division programs and projects. STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Letteri, Davis, and Allshouse, L. PRESENTER (S): Lori Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. The cumulative total of the FY 2014 appropriations itemized below is $3,915,287.87. Because the cumulative amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public hearing is required. STRATEGIC PLAN: Mission: To enhance the well-being and quality of life for all citizens through the provision of the highest level of public service consistent with the prudent use of public funds. DISCUSSION: The proposed increase of this FY 2014 Budget Amendment totals $3,915,287.87. The estimated expenses and revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below: ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES General Fund $ 891,459.33 Special Revenue Funds $ 98,191.00 School Fund $ 50,000.00 School Special Revenue Funds $ 908,673.87 ECC $ 8,470.77 Capital Improvements Funds $ 120,365.38 Debt Service Funds $ 1,838,127.52 TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 3,915,287.87 ESTIMATED REVENUES Local Revenue $ 149,386.35 State Revenue $ 251,194.00 Federal Revenue $ 115,612.00 VPSA Refund $ 496,448.58 General Fund Balance $ 781,711.00 Other Fund Balances $ 2,120,935.94 TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 3,915,287.87 AGENDA TITLE: FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations February 5, 2014 Page 2 The budget amendment is comprised of thirty-one (31) separate appropriations as follows, twenty-two (22) of which have already been approved by the Board as indicated below: Approved October 9, 2013 One (1) appropriation (#2014047) to appropriate $48,396.00 for grants awarded to the Police Department; One (1) appropriation (#2014048) to appropriate $7,225.00 for the Criminal Justice Program grant administered by Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR); and One (1) appropriation (#2014049) to appropriate $30,000.00 for a Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Grant. Approved November 6, 2013 One (1) appropriation (#2014050) to appropriate $5,928.71 for various school division programs; One (1) appropriation (#2014051) to appropriate $50,000.00 for the Ivy Fire Station Maintenance Account as required by the terms of the sublease; One (1) appropriation (#2014052) to appropriate $953.33 in donations to the Police Department; One (1) appropriation (#2014053) to appropriate $10,000.00 for the White Gables bond default; and One (1) appropriation (#2014054) to appropriate $106,251.22 for the Community Public Charter School. Approved November 13, 2013 One (1) appropriation (#2014055) to appropriate $70,365.38 for the Crozet Streetscape project. Approved December 4, 2013 One (1) appropriation (#2014056) to appropriate $1,838,127.52 to fund the initial debt service payment for the Fall 2013 borrowing; One (1) appropriation (#2014058) to allocate $60,000.00 from the Commonwealth’s Attorney fees fund to the General Fund. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; One (1) appropriation (#2014059) to appropriate $461,318.55 for various school division programs; One (1) appropriation (#2014060) for $(29,859.43) to revise the appropriation approved on August 7, 2013 for the Emergency Communications Center; One (1) appropriation (#2014061) to appropriate $718.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Office of Housing for an additional month of funding for Virginia Supportive Housing. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; One (1) appropriation (#2014062) to appropriate $25,000.00 from the Church Road Basin Stormwater Improvements project to the Western Albemarle Stormwater Improvements project. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; and One (1) appropriation (#2013063) to appropriate $6,091.23 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Community Development Department for unanticipated insurance expenditures. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget. Approved January 8, 2014 One (1) appropriation (#2014064) to allocate $15,825.00 for training and professional development for various departments. This appropriation will not increase the total budget because the funding will be allocated from the Training Pool funding; One (1) appropriation (#2014065) to appropriate $16,765.00 for the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program; One (1) appropriation (#2014066) to appropriate $8,300.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Office of Housing for an upgrade of the Office of Housings’ Housing Choice Voucher management software. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget. One (1) appropriation (#2014067) to appropriate $3,279.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Office of Housing for an additional month of funding for Virginia Supportive Housing. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; One (1) appropriation (#2014068) to appropriate $34,600.00 for the Offender Aid and Restoration Drug Court officer; One (1) appropriation (#2014070) to appropriate $38,330.20 for various Emergency Communication Center (ECC) projects approved by the ECC Management Board. AGENDA TITLE: FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations February 5, 2014 Page 3 The ten (10) appropriations requested for Board approval on February 5, 2014 are as follows: One (1) appropriation (#2014069) to appropriate $15,000.00 from the Housing Collaborative Contingency to fund the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homeless (TJACH). This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; One (1) appropriation (#2014071) to appropriate $9,995.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Clerk of the Circuit Court to fund a position to manage restitution. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; One (1) appropriation (#2014072) to appropriate $335,175.39 for various school division programs; One (1) appropriation (#2014073) to appropriate $137,750.00 from DEQ’s Stormwater Local Assistance Fund grant for the Church Road Basin Retrofit capital project. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; One (1) appropriation (#2014074) to appropriate $841,711.00 for the final payment of the City Fire Contract that expired on June 30, 2013; One (1) appropriation (#2014075) to appropriate $496,448.58 for the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Refunding. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; One (1) appropriation (#2014076) to appropriate $6,106.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Office of Housing for an additional two months of funding for Virginia Supportive Housing. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; One (1) appropriation (#2014077) to appropriate $50,000.00 for revenue associated with School Division contributions; One (1) appropriation (#2014078) to appropriate $22,500.00 for the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget; and One (1) appropriation (#2014079) to appropriate $60,000.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Department of Finance for a pay process consultant. This appropriation will not increase the total County budget. The County’s FY 14 Adopted Budget included $243,578 in the Reserves for Contingencies. If this Feb 5, 2014 Budget Amendment and associated appropriations are approved by the Board of Supervisors, the balance remaining in the County’s Reserves for Contingencies would be $139,744. RECOMMENDATIONS: After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2014 Budget Amendment in the amount of $3,915,287.87 and approval of #2014069, #2014071, #2014072, #2014073, #2014074, #2014075, #2014076, #2014077, #2014078, and #2014079 to provide funds for various local government projects and programs as described in Attachment A. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions Return to agenda Attachment A Appropriation #2014069 $0.00 This appropriation will not increase the County Budget. Source: Housing Collaborative Contingency $ 15,000.00 This request is to appropriate $15,000.00 from the Housing Collaborative Contingency to the Thomas Jefferson Area Coalition for the Homelss (TJACH). The FY14 Adopted Budget included $15,000.00 as a contingency for intake and case management services for the homeless. Prior to releasing these funds, the Agency Budget Review Team recommended requiring a coordinated implementation plan for local homeless programs. The City of Charlottesville issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in collaboration with the County of Albemarle on July 28, 2013. The purpose of the RFP was to establish a contract through competitive negotiation with an organization that would take the lead in fostering collaboration of homelessness service provision and planning in the co mmunity, as required by Federal and State agencies and to leverage local government support. Through collaboration and coordination of current services and service providers, the City and County will be better able to identify potential deficiencies and/or areas of weakness that may require further assistance. Accordingly, the RFP focused strictly on selecting an organization based on that organization’s ability to collaborate with community agencies to coordinate the provision of services to the homeless. TJACH was the sole respondent to the RFP and the Proposal Analysis Group has recommended full funding of $80,000 for that proposal, with the City monitoring the activities under the RFP. The City will be contributing $65,000 for this purpose; this appropriation is for $15,000 for the County’s share. Appropriation #2014071 $0.00 This appropriation will not increase the County Budget. Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 9,995.00 This request is to appropriate $9,995.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Clerk of the Circuit Court to fund a position to manage restitution. The Probation Office is no longer handling restitution and this function will be assumed by the Clerk’s Office in March 2014. This position will be responsible for collecting restitution from offenders and disbursing it to victims. As of October 2013, there were 129 offenders owing $2.4 million in restitution payments to 255 victims. This request will fund a half-time position which, together with existing part-time funding in the Clerk’s budget, can support a full time position. Appropriation #2014072 $335,175.39 Source: Local Non-Tax Revenue $ 59,390.00 State Revenue $ 25,000.00 School Bus Replacement Fund $ 250,785.39 This request is to appropriate the following School Division requests approved by the School Board on December 12, 2013: Funding for the Club Yancey Program: The Club Yancey Program has collected $5,920.00 in tuition fees, $2,020.00 from fundraisers, $34,400.00 in donations, and $1,800.00 in grants from QuickStart Tennis for a total of $44,140.00. These funds will be used to cover the operating expenses for the program. The QuickStart grant funds will be used to cover the cost of a tennis instructor and to support the Teamwork Girls Club. Virgnia Department of Education Supplemental Grant: Murray High School has been awarded a Supplemental Grant in the amount of $25,000.00 from the Virginia Department of Education. Of this amount, $20,000.00 will be used to award mini-grants to students. Students will be able to apply for the mini-grants, up to $250.00, to support their research project. The remaining $5,000.00 will be used to expand professional opportunities for teachers, including leadership training in performance-based assessments and grant writing workshops. Miscellaneous Grants and Donations: Albemarle County Public Schools received several local grants and donations totaling $15,250.00. These funds will be used for a variety of programs in the School Division. Re-appropriation of School Bus Replacement Fund fund balance: the School Bus Replacement Fund was established by the School Division to provide consistent funding for bus replacement. School Bus funding was no longer included in the School Division budget and the costs were moved to the Capital Improvement Fund beginning in FY 14. The School Division’s School Bus Replacement fund has an unexpended fund balance in the amount of $250,785.39. This Attachment A request is to re-appropriate available funds for use in FY 14. Of this amount, $174,348.00 will be used for the purchase of two buses. The remaining $76,437.39 will be used by the School Division for the purchase of replacement vehicles included in the small fleet of sedans and minivans that are used for transporting students. Appropriation #2014073 $0.00 This appropriation will not increase the County Budget. Source: State $ 137,750.00 This request is to appropriate $137,750.00 in State grant revenue for the Church Road Basin Retrofit project. The grant funding is through the Deaprtment of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ’s) Stormwater Local Assistance Fund, a new funding program for stormwater pollution reduction efforts related to Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). The Church Road Basin Retrofit project consists of various enhancements to an existing regional stormwater management facility designed to improve its ability to remove pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment) from stormwater runoff. This will help the County meet required pollutant reductions mandated for the Chesap eake Bay watershed and local streams. The project is being designed by Kimley-Horn and is expected to be out to bid in late January 2014. This appropriation will not increase the budget by reducing the use of Stormwater Fund fund balance. Appropriation #2014074 $841,711.00 Source: General Fund fund balance $ 841,711.00 This request is to appropriate $841,711.00 from the General Fund fund balance to be combined with a $150,000.00 FY 14 budgeted amount to pay the $991,710.69 final payment of the City Fire Contract which expired on June 30, 2013. This amount is based on the services provided by the City for the County, pursuant to the terms of the Contract that recently expired. Under the Contract in effect since May 2000, the City provided supportive fire coverage in the County. The price of the agreement was based on the cost of a City’s engine company, adjusted annually for inflation. Beginning in November 2010, during the five-year financial planning process, the County began making plans to open the Ivy Fire Station and to reduce the dependence on the City for supportive fire coverage. This change resulted in the re-negotiation of the terms of the City Fire Contract which took longer than initially anticipated. While the City and County negotiated the updated terms, the City’s fire support services continued at a high rate through the end of FY 13. The Finance Department received an invoice from the City in December 2013 for the City’s services that were provided to the County for the time period of July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. This cost associated with the expired Fire Contract is higher than anticipated; however, the County anticipated that the final payment would be a one-time cost and, as such, would be appropriately provided for with one-time funding. The City’s services will continue to be required in FY 14; however, pursuant to the terms of the proposed new contract, they are anticipated to be provided at a significantly lower rate than those provided on behalf of the County in F Y 13. Since the City’s FY 14 expenditures will be invoiced to the County in FY 15, the estimated cost for the City’s services provided during FY 14 will be included in the recommended FY 15 Budget. Appropriation #2014075 $0.00 This appropriation will not increase the County Budget. Source: VPSA Refunding $ 496,448.58 Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Bal. ($ 248,224.29) Sch. CIP Fund Bal. ($ 248,224.29) This request is to appropriate revenue associated with the School Division Debt Service fund and to re-allocate the resulting available General Fund transfer balance to the Capital Program funds: Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) Refunding : This request is to appropriate $496,448.58 in Debt Service Savings related to a bond rebate of multiple VPSA issues and to decrease the General Fund transfer to the School Debt Service fund by the equivalent amount of $496,448.58. This results in no increase for the Attachment A School Debt Service fund, leaving $496,448.58 to be re-allocated to other debt and capital funds. The debt series include: VPSA 1994, VPSA 1995, VPSA 1996, VPSA 1997, VPSA 1998, VPSA 1998 PREP, VPSA 1999, VPSA 2000, VPSA 2001, VPSA 2004, and VPSA 2005. General Fund Transfer Reallocation to Capital Funds: o This request decreases the use of School CIP Fund balance in the amount of $248,224.29 by increasing the General Fund transfer by $248,224.29. o This decreases the use of General Government CIP Fund balance in the amount of $248,224.29 by increasing the General Fund transfer by $248,224.29. Appropriation #2014076 $0.00 This appropriation will not increase the County Budget. Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 6,106.00 This request is to appropriate $6,106.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Office of Housing to provide an additional contribution to Virginia Supportive Housing for rental subsidies at The Crossings for six homeless persons that would otherwise be funded through the federally-funded Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program. Earlier this fiscal year, the Board approved appropriations on September 4, 2013 to provide a three-month extension (September through November 2013), December 4, 2013 to provide funding for the month of December 2013 and January 8, 2014 to provide funding for the month of January 2014. This funding will provide sufficient funding for the months of February and March 2014. Once final approvals are received from HUD and HCV vouchers are issued, local funding will be discontinued. Appropriation #2014077 $50,000.00 Source: Local Revenue (Donations) $ 50,000.00 On July 11, 2012, the Board approved streamlining the appropriation process for anticipated FY 13 School Fund revenue for grants, donations, and School Division Activity Funds. For FY 14, the School Division included an initial appropriation of $180,647.00 in anticipated donations. The School Division has exceeded this amount of donations and anticipates there will be a number of donations throughout the remainder of the school year. This request is to appropriate an additional $50,000.00 in donation funding. Funds will not be expended until the revenues are actually received. Appropriation #2014078 $0.00 This appropriation will not increase the County Budget. Source: Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Bal. ($ 19,500.00) Stormwater CIP Fund Bal. $ 19,500.00 This request is to appropriate $19,500.00 in funding that had previously been appropriated to the Crozet Library and $3,000.00 from funding currently appropriated for unassigned capital Project Management (PM) fees for a total of $22,500.00 to the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project. The funds that were previously appropriated to the Crozet Library are available to be reallocated as the project is complete. This appropriation is required to transfer funding from one project included in the General Government CIP Fund to a project which is included in the CIP’s Stormwater Fund. The budget for the Downtown Crozet Stormwater Wetlands Project requires additional funding due to an unforeseen requirement by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) that wetlands soils be amended with organic matter. After the approval of this re-allocation, the project will be completed and a final payment will be made to the contractor. Appropriation #2014079 $0.00 This appropriation will not increase the County Budget. Source: Reserve for Contingencies $ 60,000.00 This request is to appropriate $60,000.00 from the Reserve for Contingencies to the Finance Depa rtment to hire a pay process consultant. The consultant will conduct a study of the County’s current pay processes and make recommendations for improvements, with the ultimate goal of reaching a higher degree of accuracy in employee pay processing. Additonal details are provided in a separate executive summary included in today’s agenda packet. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Department of Social Services Advisory Board Annual Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Receive FY 13 Annual Report STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Walker, Davis, and Ralston PRESENTER (S): Ms. Janet Morrow, Advisory Board Chair LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Virginia Code § 63.2-300, all counties in Virginia are required to establish a local board to oversee the provision of social services to its residents. The Board of Supervisors established the Albemarle County Department of Social Services Advisory Board in 1997. One of its required duties is to make an annual report to the Board of Supervisors, concurrent with the Department’s budget presentation, concerning the administration of the public welfare program. STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 5. Ensure the health and safety of the community. Goal 7. Promote a valued and responsive County workforce that ensures excellent customer service. DISCUSSION: The FY2013 Annual Report provides a summary of the Department’s programs and services, including the number of cases in each program area for the year coupled with stories of those served. Also included are the Department’s Key Performance Indicators and its unaudited finances. Of particular note in this report are the continued increases in the number of individuals served through the Department’s Benefit Programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), Energy Assistance, and Medicaid, as well as the increases in Foster Care Services. BUDGET IMPACT: Funding for the Department of Social Services is included in the County’s annual operating budget. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board accept the FY2013 Department of Social Services Advisory Board’s Annual Report. ATTACHMENTS: A-FY2013 DSS Annual Report Return to agenda Partnering for Success 2013 ANNUAL REPORT Albemarle County Department of Social Services Presented by the Advisory Board NOTE: This FY 2013 Annual Report was designed, developed, and produced solely by the Staff and Advisory Board of the Albemarle County Department of Social Services. CONTENTS ADVISORY BOARD LETTER 3 AGENCY KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 4 WORKLOAD MEASURES 5 SERVICES AND PROGRAMS PREVENTION 6 CHILD WELFARE 8 ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE 10 EMPLOYMENT 12 HEALTH CARE 14 ADULT/ELDER SERVICES 16 EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 18 BUSINESS SERVICES 19 It is with great pleasure that the Albemarle County Department of Social Services (ACDSS) Advisory Board presents to you its annual report for FY 2013. It is an honor to serve our residents through the work of this Board. The exceptional performance of the ACDSS public servants has provided a safety net for over 15,000 individuals with benefits and services in FY13, and in doing so, have touched the lives of young and old throughout our community. We appreciate the opportunity to share some of the results of the public services provided to the residents of Albemarle County. The theme for this year’s annual report is Partnering for Success. With today’s challenges in terms of community needs and fiscal constraints, partnering has played a key role in the suc- cess of ACDSS efforts, as demonstrated throughout the report. As in the past, ACDSS has mobilized communities of care to ensure that all residents, whatever age, have opportunities to thrive. The Advisory Board, as part of the governance of the Department, has undertaken activities aligned with these criteria. We regularly reviewed the issues relating to adult services; family preservation, benefits and support; Bright Stars program; child protective services and foster care; and resource management and other administrative concerns of the Department. Ad- ditionally, we met with the Charlottesville City Department of Social Services for an exchange of issues, ideas, and identification of possible partnering possibilities. Throughout the past year, we met with the Director regularly. Some of that time was spent broadening our knowledge of the work of the Department by learning more about upcoming challenges with regard to new automation, new medical framework, and new opportunities such as PACE. It is a privilege for us to work with the staff of the Department. We are concerned about the significant impact of budget insecurity and the associated apprehension for both our cus- tomers and our staff. However, we have great confidence in the ability of this staff to meet the challenges of the uncertain environment through their focus on performance and results. In the following, we are pleased to share an overview of the Department’s programs and ser- vices as well as individual stories that are part of the community life of this organization. The ACDSS Advisory Board 3 Janet Morrow Laney Kaminer Lincoln Lewis Nancy Gill Martin Burks Doug Walker Yris Vaca 4 The ACDSS Office of Program Accountability (OPA) monitors, evaluates and reports progress on all unit and overall agency performance goals. The Leadership Team then assesses the identified critical measures to examine agency-wide performance on a quarterly basis. The OPA also supports ACDSS’ on- going data needs by providing expertise on survey design and analysis, program evaluation, and workload measures tracking. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FY 2013 ACDSS Agency Key Performance Indicators Scorecard Outcome Objective FY 11 FY 12 FY13 Actual FY 13 Target FY 13 Target +/- Actual Adults and families are medically insured. 97% of Medicaid applications are proc- essed within 45 days. 96% 97% 96% 97% -1% Adults and families are medically insured. 97% of Medicaid renewals are processed by the last day of the month in which they are due. 79% 90% 95% 97% -2% Adults and families have sufficient food stuffs. 97% of SNAP applications are processed within 30 days. 99% 99% 99% 97% 2% Adults are gainfully employed. VIEW participants earn a mean initial hourly wage of at least $9.00 per hour. $8.71 $8.84 $8.76 $9.00 -$0.24 Adults are safe. 40% of adults with an initial APSART score of High or Moderate will have their risk reduced by at least one risk level at dispo- sition. N/A 32% 33% 40% -8% Children have safe and stable home placements. 90% of foster care children receive monthly face-to-face visits from their so- cial workers. 89% 92% 83% 90% -7% Children are safe. 90% of new referrals are responded to per SDM timeliness guidelines. 92% 83% 85% 90% -5% Children are safe. 90% of ongoing CPS cases have the # of required monthly contacts, per state CPS policy N/A 74% 56% 90% -34% Children are successful in school. 80% of Bright Stars children pass the PreK PALS benchmark. 81% 79% 74% 80% -6% Children are successful in school. 90% of Family Support children have no CPS reports of abuse or neglect within a 12 month period. 98% 97% 96% 90% 6% ACDSS is a good financial steward of resources. Local Funding position will remain at least 1% under budgeted amount. 22% 11% 5% 1% 4% Workload Measures are a standard, expressed as the number of hours required to handle a case, applied to existing caseloads. Measures can vary depending on number of staff, weight given to tasks, and state standards. The target monthly caseload is 108.5 hours per case worker for Adult Benefits and Family & Children Benefits. The target monthly caseload is 106.6 hours per case worker for all other units. Monthly caseload targets were derived based on observation of the percent of time caseworkers spend on case-specific activities (including face-to-face contacts, recording case notes, conducting assessments, providing or arranging for services, etc). Also taken into consideration are hours dedicated to administra- tive activities (including reviewing policy manuals, developing resources, attending meetings, etc.), train- ing activities (both delivering and receiving), and non-work activities (including breaks, vacation, sick time, etc.). This was a statewide study conducted for the Virginia DSS by a private consulting firm in 2008. Since that time numerous additional mandates have been placed on local DSS staff that are not accounted for in the measures. 5 WORKLOAD MEASURES PREVENTION SERVICES TO HELP FAMILIES LEARN AND GROW TOGETHER 6 A 2nd grade girl was in need of a place to go after school that was safe and offered academic support. Her mother had just started a new job, and al- though her father is unemployed and at home, he suffers with a serious substance abuse issue and is not able to offer consistent and safe care. The after school program at the school was available, but the family did not have the $100 a month fee that it would cost to send their little girl to the program. The Family Support Worker partnered with a com- munity church who paid the $1,200 necessary for this student to stay in a safe learning environment. The little girl has been so excited that she draws a thank you card for the after school director daily and tells her “Thank you for letting me stay!” THE NEED: Safe after school environment for a second grade girl THE RESPONSE: After school program PARTNERS: ACDSS Community Church BEST PRACTICE: The Bright Stars and Family Support programs both embody the best practice of engaging with families outside the classroom in order to help children excel in school. We support the whole family to embrace learning, recognizing that the class- room is only one part of a child’s educational success. We have a large Latino population participating in Bright Stars and Family Support, so family engagement often means partnering with interpreters and other community organizations serving the Latino community to en- gage those families in order to be- come more comfortable and familiar with their children’s school. By ac- tively seeking to bridge language barriers, we ensure that all mem- bers of the Family Support and Bright Stars programs feel equally valued and included. Prevention Programs Family Support is a pre-placement prevention program based in ten Albemarle County elementary schools and three middle schools. Bright Stars is an early intervention preschool program for four-year-old children and their families. Two students were applying for the summer fund the week the fund was depleted. These children were unable to access any assistance from the summer fund, and, therefore, would not be able to go to 4-H Camp. The Family Support Worker contacted the elementary school and the Extension Office who ran the 4-H Camp. The Extension Office reserved the students’ space while awaiting funding. The 4-H Camp offered a $100 dollar scholarship for each child, and the school PTO rose to the occasion and covered the remaining balance so these two kids (siblings) would not miss out on this highly anticipated overnight camping experi- ence. By the way, they had a blast at camp! 7 PREVENTION SERVICES TO HELP FAMILIES LEARN AND GROW TOGETHER THE NEED: Funding to send two siblings to an overnight camp THE RESPONSE: Camp scholarship, Parent-Teacher Organization (PTO) funding PARTNERS: ACDSS 4-H Camp Stone Robinson Elementary School PTO “My experience with our Bright Stars Fam- ily Coordinator has been exceptional. Bright Stars is a won- derful program. Thank you for provid- ing this service.” - Bright Stars parent WORKING WITH FAMILIES TO IMPROVE CHILD WELFARE 8 Child Welfare Programs Family Preservation Services helps families alleviate crisis situations that might lead to out-of-home placements of children due to abuse, neglect, or parental inability to care for their children. These ser- vices help to maintain the safety of children in their own homes, support families preparing to reunify or adopt, and assist families in obtaining other services to meet multiple needs. Foster Care Services provides services, substitute care, and supervision for a child on a 24-hour basis until the child can return to his or her family or be placed in an adoptive home or another permanent foster care placement. Adoption Services helps children who have been permanently and legally separated from their birth par- ents become permanent members of a new family. Child Protective Services identifies, assesses, and provides services to children who have been abused or neglected and to their families. It is designed to preserve families whenever possible, yet protect chil- dren and prevent further maltreatment. “ACDSS has been there for me and my kids when no one else has. And the caseworkers are so kind and caring.” - ACDSS customer BEST PRACTICE: As part of our efforts to support high- risk families, we began conducting Family Partnership Meetings (FPMs) in FY11. FPMs bring together families, community members, and social ser- vices professionals to make child placement decisions together. By en- gaging families in the decision-making process, they are more likely to com- ply with the resulting plan. It is impor- tant for these meetings to involve a range of community partners, who can bring a variety of viewpoints and re- sources to the table. In FY13, an aver- age of 3 non-ACDSS community pro- viders attended every FPM, repre- senting child advocacy groups, thera- pists, schools, and other health and social service providers. 9 WORKING WITH FAMILIES TO IMPROVE CHILD WELFARE A Family Partnership Meeting was held as the Department was preparing to file an abuse and neglect petition to request a child be removed from her home. The mother had substance abuse issues to address before she would be in a position to care for her 13 year old daugh- ter. At the Family Partnership Meeting, 20 family members were present. It was a humbling and powerful process to watch the family members speak openly about concerns for the child and what needed to happen. During the meeting, there were multiple possible place- ments identified with agreement that two in particular were the best choices. The family around the table made it clear that they were a close knit family and they were committed to providing care for the teenager. Having high functioning family members available, who have an existing relationship with the child, lessens the likelihood that a foster care place- ment will be needed. THE NEED: Safe placement of a 13 year old girl THE RESPONSE: Family Partnership Meeting, two placements identified PARTNERS: ACDSS Family Members *FY11 has only 2 quarters of data. BEST PRACTICE: Many immigrants and refugees do not realize that they are eligible for social services programs. We partner with organizations such as the In- ternational Rescue Committee to educate community members about the economic assistance programs that are available and how to apply. We also have ongoing efforts to translate informational materials and applications into Spanish, which we distribute at community events and fairs. By proactively reaching out to immigrants and refugees, we ensure they know about the pro- grams that can help them and their families thrive in their new homes. PROVIDING ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS 10 Economic Assistance Programs: SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) provides bene- fits to eligible persons for the purchase of vital food items. Energy Assistance consists of three federally mandated programs with heating and cooling components for all citizens with economic need. TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) provides tempo- rary financial assistance to eligible families. Child Care Services provides low-income families with funding to enhance the quality, affordability, and availability of child care. Auxiliary Grants supplement the income of recipients of Supplemental Security Income and other low- income aged, blind, or disabled individuals residing in licensed assisted living facilities. “Overall, ACDSS has won- derful case workers with respect for all members of the family. It was so nice to receive help and assis- tance when needed.” - ACDSS customer 11 PROVIDING ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO FAMILIES AND INDIVIDUALS THE NEED: Heat THE RESPONSE: ACDSS works with local vendors PARTNERS: ACDSS Vendors Local Agencies “My caseworker is an ANGEL! Upon meeting my kids and myself she took us under her wing and guided us through the often complicated process for lay people. She is an amazing one of a kind human being who truly cares about the people she helps.” - Families & Children’s Benefits customer Partnering with vendors to ensure that fuel can be delivered in the winter months can often mean the difference between a warm home or a dangerously cold one. Vendors require minimum deliveries and the Energy Assistance Program often does not provide enough money to meet this minimum for some vendors. Customers with limited resources need additional assistance in these cases. Agency staff works with the customers on a solution and engages the resources of other local agencies to help meet this gap. This partnership achieves the goal of ensuring our cus- tomers are warm and safe. 12 EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO PROMOTE RESIDENT SELF-SUFFICIENCY Employment Programs Career Center provides the general public with career resources and services in order to prepare a work force that is informed, capable, and ready for work. VIEW (Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare) provides employment education, training and support services to qualified TANF recipients. BEST PRACTICE: ACDSS strives to help residents become self -sufficient. To do this, we partnered with the Virginia Workforce Network to open an on-site Career Center where residents can ac- cess job search resources, help with resumes and applica- tions, and interview preparation tips. The Career Center is convenient for residents who are already at the ACDSS of- fice for other appointments, and is small enough to offer one-on-one services. In FY13, three-quarters of Career Center visits were repeat visitors, who cite the helpful- ness of the Career Center Program Coordinator, the wel- coming environment, and the convenient location of the center as their primary reasons for returning. 13 EMPLOYMENT SERVICES TO PROMOTE RESIDENT SELF-SUFFICIENCY “I come to the Career Center because they are great at assisting me with my resume and cover letter, and this Center is very resourceful when it comes to job openings.” -Career Center customer A single mother of two children came into the VIEW (Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare) program. She was suffering from some mental health issues which she felt were keeping her from being successful. She was encouraged to make an appointment with her physician who determined she had some depression and anxiety issues. The doctor stated she could participate at 20 hours per week in the VIEW program. The doctor also prescribed some anxiety medication. She attended job readiness classes and used the career center for job search assistance. She received help with child care and transportation and was referred to Worksource Enterprises and the Department of Rehabilitative Services for extra assistance due to her disability. She was not able to find a job right away so she was placed in a public service job at a local non-profit organization. This job helped her regain her confidence. She was able to find a part time job in a local food service business and has worked her way up to a full time General Manager’s position. We stay in contact and she frequently says “thank you” for pushing her towards her success and encouraging her along the way. THE NEED: A job for a single mother with mental health issues THE RESPONSE: Encouragement, job search assistance, child care, transportation, rehab services, public service position, employment PARTNERS: ACDSS Doctor Dept. of Rehabilitative Services Worksource Enterprises Non-profit Organization Employer 14 ENSURING ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE SERVICES Health Care Programs Medicaid is a joint Federal and State program that provides essential medical services to the most vul- nerable populations in our community. Long-Term Care is support in the form of Medicaid for nursing care or community based care. UVA Hospital Medicaid Unit provides Medicaid benefits to medically indigent inpatients and residents treated in specified outpatient clinics at UVA. “Everyone at Albemarle County Social Services was so nice and helped me get the service I needed...Thank you to everyone for your help!” - Long-term care services customer BEST PRACTICE: ACDSS’s Medicaid Unit partners with UVA Medical Center to determine Medicaid eligibility for uninsured patients. The unit also has an agree- ment with 21 other localities to complete Medicaid enrollment for residents living within those juris- dictions. This enables us to immedi- ately enroll those cases instead of sending the case to be enrolled by the home locality. This reduces the enrollment process by an average of 14 days. As a result, the hospital is able to immediately begin billing on the cases we enroll and the pa- tients are able to begin accessing services with no delay. 15 ENSURING ACCESS TO QUALITY HEALTH CARE SERVICES THE NEED: Working parents needed affordable daily care for their seriously ill infant THE RESPONSE: Approval for Long Term Care Medicaid, set up of care services PARTNERS: ACDSS Care Provider Medical Equipment Company A medicaid application was received for an infant child who had complex medical needs, in- cluding the need for a ventilator, oxygen, tube feeding, and 24 -hour care. Both of the child’s parents worked and were not able to afford to stay home with him. The Medicaid Department worked with the agency screener for child services (Family Support Worker) and Adult Protec- tive Services to get this child approved for Long Term Care Medicaid. The team worked to- gether with a local community based care provider to help the family begin services, as well as find a durable medical equipment company that would provide for the child’s needs. With the Medicaid approval and working collaboratively, we were able to alleviate many concerns for the family. “ACDSS provided me with ex- cellent service and was very respectful—many thanks for your level of care.” - ACDSS customer 16 ENSURING HEALTH AND SAFETY OF VULNERABLE ADULTS Adult Services Programs: Adult Services is a program that enables adults to remain in the least restrictive setting and function independently. This program provides long-term care, preventive services, nursing and adult home screening and placement services, guardianship oversight and adult protective services. Adult Protective Services investigates reports of abuse, neglect, and exploitation of adults 60 years of age and incapacitated adults over 18 years of age. The goal is to protect a vulnerable adult’s life, health, and property without a loss of independence. The Companion Services Program assists elderly and/or disabled adults in their home who are unable to care for themselves without assistance. BEST PRACTICE: Our Adult Services Unit works closely with lo- cal hospital systems to ensure that health care workers, social service workers, and law enforce- ment officials are all on the same page when an Adult Protective Services (APS) case arises. ACDSS has an existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with UVA Hospital outlining when to make an APS referral, each partner’s role in an APS in- vestigation, and how to work together to handle difficult discharges and guardianship cases. ACDSS is now working to set up a similar MOU with Martha Jefferson Hospital. These struc- tured partnerships allow all entities to work together more efficiently in order to provide high quality services to our mutual customers. 17 ENSURING HEALTH AND SAFETY OF VULNERABLE ADULTS THE NEED: Save an elderly gentleman from financial exploitation THE RESPONSE: Investigation PARTNERS: ACDSS Physicians Attorneys Financial Advisor Family Members Bank Representatives Assisted Living Facility Administrators An investigation requiring over a dozen collaterals including physicians, attorneys, a fi- nancial advisor, legal representatives of a nationwide bank, administrative officials of an assisted living facility, and a number of family members resulted in a finding of financial exploitation against a person who had power of attorney over an 86 year old man. Get- ting that changed so he could regain his independence was a key outcome that resulted in saving his finances and allowing him to live at home again. “My caseworker goes above and beyond to assist me and my family to as- sure I receive benefits I am eligible for.” - Adult Services customer EMERGENCY OPERATIONS 18 In June-July 2012, ACDSS partnered with the Charlottesville DSS, city and county police and fire and rescue staff, as well as local schools to provide emergency services for victims of the dere- cho. This involved opening and managing a shelter at Burnley-Moran Elementary School with Charlottesville DSS, as well as a second shelter at Albemarle High School for 75 nursing home residents. As power outages continued throughout the week, ACDSS Adult Services staff worked together with ACPD and Fire and Rescue to provide wellness checks on isolated elderly persons in the county. To provide relief from the summer heat, ACDSS also opened and oper- ated a daytime cooling center at Yancey Elementary School over the weekend of July 6-8. By partnering together effectively, ACDSS and other local service -delivery organizations were able to ensure the health and safety of residents during this difficult time. THE NEED: Emergency support due to Derecho storm followed by extreme heat THE RESPONSE: Shelters, Emergency Communications Center support, elderly wellness checks PARTNERS: ACDSS CDSS Schools AC Fire Rescue ECC AC Police Charlottesville Department of Social Services BUSINESS SERVICES 19 The Business Services Division serves as a key support resource for all ACDSS operations. This work includes budgeting and financial planning, developing agency strategic and operational initia- tives, and complying with all federal, state and local financial requirements. The Division also pro- vides ongoing financial management, manages reception and switchboard operations and cus- tomer feedback processes. Federal and State resources that are brought into the community through ACDSS provide a tremendous economic boost to local businesses and help to sustain local employment. Funds support jobs in the medical and child care arenas, as well as the housing, grocery and energy sectors. BEST PRACTICE: The Business Services Unit is committed to ensuring that ACDSS runs efficiently and cost-effectively. To do this, we benchmark with other organizations as a best practice for sharing information and identifying process improvements. In FY13 we benchmarked with 11 local organizations to learn more about their Reception processes. This involved conducting a survey and four site visits with the Thomas Jeffer- son Health District, UVA, social services departments in other localities, and other Albemarle County de- partments. Through this effort, all partners gained new perspectives on strategies for handling cus- tomer flow, managing appointments, meeting lan- guage needs, and dealing with staffing concerns. * Does not include Bright Stars & CSA transfers Federal/State/Other Funds Local Funds Food Stamps 10,577,579$ Albemarle County Social Services Funds: Medicaid 45,717,254$ Local Match - General Fund 3,938,894$ TANF 457,204$ Bright Stars Transfer - General Fund 384,519$ Energy Assistance 520,422$ Bright Stars Transfer - Bright Stars Fund 232,423$ FAMIS (Total Title XXI)2,351,211$ CSA Transfer - General Fund 2,375,000$ Child Care (VACMS) NEW!650,890$ Albemarle County Schools Funds: Other Federal 3,685,703$ Family Support School Transfer 188,338$ Other State 2,263,900$ Bright Stars Transfer 95,535$ Bright Stars 411,000$ CSA Transfer 1,213,000$ M.J. Child Health Grant 5,000$ TOTAL 8,427,709$ UVA Medicaid 534,438$ 8.1% UVA Medicaid Generated Revenues 24,079,259$ Comprehensive Services Act (CSA)4,586,910$ Central Service Cost Allocation 272,189$ TOTAL 96,112,959$ 91.9% ** Please note that figures represented are unaudited. Sources: Virginia Department of Social Services Financial LASER System, Albemarle County Financial Management System, Albemarle County Department of Social Services Leadership Team and Agency Staff $0 $20,000,000 $40,000,000 $60,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000 Federal/State Local Albemarle DSS Federal, State, and Local Funds Including Direct Financial Assistance for Albemarle Residents albemarle SOCIAL SERVICES 1600 5th Street, Suite A, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Reception Line (434) 972-4010 Food Stamp Line (434) 972-3143 Fax (434) 972-4080 www.albemarle.org We bring to bear all of our talents and resources to provide opportunities for our customers to succeed and thrive. OPPORTUNITY: We share and show esteem, appreciation and acceptance of diversity and treat all individuals with honor and dignity. RESPECT: We work in ways that instill hope by opening doors to opportunity. HOPE: VALUES We promote self-sufficiency and individual and family well-being. Together with our partners we mobilize communities of care to ensure that all persons thrive. MISSION VISION We recognize that individuals are responsible for their own development and have the freedom to choose. SELF DETERMINATION: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Virginia Pre-School Initiative “Bright Stars” Annual Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: FY13 Annual Report STAFF CONTACT(S): Foley, Walker, Davis, Freeman, and Ralston PRESENTER (S): John Freeman LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: February 5, 2014 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: As a result of the Virginia Pre-School Initiative (VPI) funding initiated by Governor Wilder in 1994, the Board established the Bright Stars program as a collaboration among Social Services, the School Division and community partners. Social Services serves as the coordinator and fiscal agent for the program. The first classroom was established at Stone Robinson Elementary School, and this year the program has ten classrooms in eight elementary schools, including two at Greer and Cale and one classroom each at Agnor-Hurt, Red Hill, Scottsville, Stone Robinson, Stony Point, and Woodbrook. In 2009, the Pre-School Network for Albemarle County was established to oversee the blending of funding streams from the VPI, Title I and Early Childhood Special Education programs to serve more children in inclusion classrooms. STRATEGIC PLAN: Local Government Goal 1. Provide excellent educational opportunities to all Albemarle County residents. School Division Goal: All Albemarle County Public Schools students will graduate having actively mastered the lifelong-learning skills they need to succeed as 21st century learners, workers, and citizens. DISCUSSION: The FY13 Annual Report is a review of the Pre-School Network services, including the number of children served and the results of educational and family outcomes. Also included are the Program’s Key Performance Indicators and VPI unaudited finances. BUDGET IMPACT: Continued funding for the program is being requested in the FY15 budget. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board accept the FY13 Bright Stars Annual Report. ATTACHMENTS: FY13 Bright Stars Annual Report Return to agenda Office of Facilities Development (OFD) Capital Projects Status Report 4th Quarter CY 2013 February 5, 2014 OFD is pleased to present the fourth quarter Capital Projects Status Report for calendar year 2013. The report provides summary level information on all projects managed by OFD, both Capital Projects and Capital Maintenance Projects. The first of this type report was presented to the Board in February 2012 and the Board of Supervisors (BOS) confirmed the format and contents of the report provided the level of detail expected. OFD would like to assure the report detail continues to meet the expectations of the Board. As background for the new BOS members, the purpose of the Quarterly Capital Project Status Report was to establish a means of formal, regular reporting on the status of Capital Project to key stakeholders, including the BOS and County Executive. OFD tracks its projects using the shared services site (SharePoint). The information contained herein is pulled from information tracked and reported monthly during the project reviews attended by the Assistant County Executives, Department Heads and Director of Building Services. As part of the Project Management (PM) process, the OFD PM establishes a baseline budget at the beginning of a project typically pulled from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) worksheet to establish the budget that is used to measure the amount of deviation of performance from the original plan. In the detailed project reports attached this information is refle cted in the Baseline column of the budget. The Current Estimate at Completion budget column includes a combination of actual cost paid, remaining work committed (encumbered) and future forecasted (uncommitted) work on the project as determined by the PM. The variance column allows for tracking of changes in the project cost estimates as compared to the baseline. The baseline budget can be changed only by a significant scope event and with the approval of the budget authority (such as the Agnor-Hurt addition adding a separation of bus and car drop off to the project – FY15 CIP request). For purposes of this report a “Capital Project” has been approved through the CIP process and is a planned expense for a facility or physical item requiring a minimum expenditure of $20,000 by the County, having a useful life span of 10 years or more, and meets one or more of the following definitions: • Involves the acquisition or construction of any physical facility for the community; • Involves the acquisition of land or an interest in land for the community; • Involves the acquisition or construction of public utilities; • Involves modifications to facilities, including additions to existing facilities, which increases the square footage, useful life, or value of the facility. The fourth quarter was an exhilarating time for the OFD team! Following are some notable highlights on key projects. Bids were received and a contract awarded for the long awaited Crozet Streetscape project with construction starting in February. An Invitation for Bid has been issued for the Northside Library and Storage Facility project with a bid opening February 12th. Construction is currently underway on the Seminole Trail Fire Station addition/renovation; the Belvedere Residential "Block" roads, drainage, water, sanitary sewer project from Free State Road bridge to the Village Green is nearing completion; and design negotiation is underway for the upcoming school summer maintenance projects. The following sections provide a summary on all projects and more detailed information of select Capital Projects. During the meeting on the 5th, Trevor Henry will provide a summary level review of projects and he along with the individual PM’s will be available for any detailed questions. Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter, CY 2013 Page 1 of 10 CAPITAL PROJECTS Substantially Complete Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone Crozet Library Construction of a 23,000 square foot, LEED certified library building, including space for complementary uses such as public meeting rooms and community space. Library punch list complete. Lease area upfit work substantially complete and larger tenant space occupied. $8,654,470 Library - Complete December 2013 Lease Area – Upfit work substantially complete December 2013 In Construction Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone Crozet Streetscape Phase II Relocation of overhead electric and utility lines from Crozet Avenue, new stormwater drainage system, first block of Main Street (Library Avenue), and pedestrian, vehicular, and streetscape enhancements along Crozet Avenue from The Square to Tabor Street. Notice to Proceed issued for work to commence!! Project SharePoint site access established for team collaboration. Utility relocation completed and poles removed. $4,494,481 Streetscape – Substantial completion October 2014 Utility relocation – completed January 2014 Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center Construction of an educational building (including transportation exhibits and river history), an access road and parking area, and a connecting trail network, all located at Darden Towe Park. Funded by a grant through the VDOT Transportation Enhancement Fund Program ($800,000) combined with other funds raised by the Lewis & Clark Exploratory Center. Coordinating preparation of site bond estimate with Community Development. LCEC coordinating completion of remaining site work and final payment to contractor. LCEC coordinating testing/final inspection of building systems. Compiling supporting documentation for final County reimbursement request to VDOT. $800,000 (Grant only) Substantial Completion December 2013 Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter, CY 2013 Page 2 of 10 Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD) Addition/Renovation Addition (7,500 sq. ft.) to STVFD and full renovation of the existing facilities (~7,500 sq. ft.). Includes 2-bay addition, expansion of living quarters and full renovation of existing facility to bring it to code and improve the facilities to properly support the highest call volume station in the County. Construction underway and approximately 25% complete as of December 2013. Completed work includes concrete curb at new entrance, slab-on-grade, concrete walls, and new framing in existing building. $3,857,538 Substantial Completion September 2014 Belvedere Bond Default Project Complete the Belvedere Boulevard and Residential "Block" roads, drainage, water, sanitary sewer and related construction according to the approved development plans. Phase 1 of the work is Belvedere Boulevard from Rio Road to Free State Road (RR bridge); Phase 2 is the remaining Belvedere Boulevard (Free State Rd. to the Village Green) and the residential "Blocks" (3, 4A, 5A, 6B & 9A). Funds for this project are from the developer’s performance bonds. Phase 1 Work: Bond proceeds not sufficient to cover work; project on hold pending resolution of funding issues. Phase 2 Work: comprised of multiple development bonds necessitating dividing project into individual Bid Items for each bond resulting in award of four contracts. Road & drainage improvements, landscaping, stomwater basin #4 & forebay, stormwater basin #5, and stormwater basin #1A riser structure substantially complete. Remaining work in progress – weather has been a factor. $3,675,790 Phase 1 Work – Resolve funding issues Phase 2 Work – Substantial Completion of all contracted improvements February 2014 Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter, CY 2013 Page 3 of 10 Western Albemarle High School (WAHS) Stormwater Impacts Design and construct a stormwater management (SWM) facility and improve head of channel at the back of WAHS. SWM facility will provide stormwater attenuation and treatment (in the form of a biofilter) for the runoff from the driver's education parking lot. Design Complete Notice to Proceed issued for Construction to commence 12/18/13. $183,589 Substantial Completion April 2014 In Bid/Award Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone Crozet North SRTS Sidewalk Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant provides pedestrian improvements along west side of Crozet Avenue North between Crozet Elementary School and Ballard Drive. Construction work includes erosion & sediment control, site grading, concrete curb & sidewalk, ADA ramps, crosswalk striping & alert system, asphalt paving, stormwater system, waterline relocation, & site restoration. Bid Opening 10/29/13 – “No Award Letter” issued December 18th since bids received were over budget. Identifying design changes that reduce cost for review with VDOT and ACSA. Evaluating use of proffer funds (~$85k) to fully fund project in order to re-advertise. $190,000 (Current) $275,000 (Projected) Re-advertise 1st Quarter 2014 Construct 2nd Quarter 2014, ~3-4 months construction Northside Library and Storage Facility Provide a permanent location for the Northside Library and long-term County warehouse/ storage space. The new facility (repurposing of existing building) would provide approximately 30,000 s.f. of library space, and over 20,000 s.f. of warehouse space. Project advertised 1/15/14. Mandatory pre-bid meeting held on 1/23/14. Bid opening scheduled for 2/12/14. $11,820,373 Bid/award 1st Quarter 2014, storage area ~3 months construction, library ~8 months construction Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter, CY 2013 Page 4 of 10 In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk Replacing or constructing approximately 1100 feet of sidewalk and drainage improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to Crozet Elementary School. Partially funded with FY13 Revenue Sharing (RS) Funds. VDOT authorization to proceed with right-of-way phase expected in January; obtain VDOT approval before making offers. Obtain VDOT approval of Final Plans & Project Manual and authorization to advertise. $735,787 Bid/award 2nd Quarter 2014 South Pantops Drive/State Farm Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements Construction of 3500 feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk which will serve several residential, business, and commercial establishments. Partially funded with FY13 Revenue Sharing (RS) Funds. VDOT authorization to proceed with right-of-way phase expected in January; obtain VDOT approval before making offers. Obtain VDOT approval of Final Plans & Project Manual and authorization to advertise. $995,570 Bid/award 2nd Quarter 2014 Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter, CY 2013 Page 5 of 10 Hydraulic Road and Barracks Road Sidewalk Improvements Partially funded with revenue sharing funds and supports pedestrian safety by providing sidewalk improvements. Hydraulic Road - construction of approx. 1700 feet of sidewalk on the north side between Commonwealth Drive and Georgetown Road. Barracks Road - 1) construction of approx. 1000 feet of sidewalk on the north side from Barracks West apartments to existing sidewalk west of Georgetown Road intersection; 2) construction of crosswalks and two segments of sidewalk (650 ft total) on the south side between Georgetown Road intersection & Westminster Road, and between S. Bennington Road & 29/250 Bypass ramps. A/E Project Orders issued for design services December 2013. Application submitted to VDOT for additional revenue sharing funds in FY15 to fully fund construction. $894,600 (Current) $1,447,726 (Projected) Obtain additional funding for construction Bid/award 2nd Quarter 2015, ~5 months construction Fontaine Avenue Sidewalk Construction of a short sidewalk (~160') from the end of the Fontaine Research Park paved path to the end of sidewalk at the City line. This project closes the walkway gap which may create safety issues if left unconnected. Obtaining proposal from A/E on term contract to prepare a standard "technical specification" that can be used for this project and other "no plans / sketch plan" sidewalk projects. Sketch plan and detail is about 75% complete - intent is to do this as a "sketch plan" project. $102,189 Bid 1st Quarter 2014, ~1 month construction Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter, CY 2013 Page 6 of 10 Hollymead-Powell Creek Drive Sidewalk Completion of the sidewalk connection from Hollymead to Sutherland Schools. The required right-of-way has been donated. Survey and base map completed. Since proposed sidewalk is within existing right-of- way, staff will provide a minimal design plan sheet based on the survey base map. $209,164 Bid 1st Quarter 2014, ~1 month construction Police Firearms Training Center Facility Design and construction of a regional indoor firearms training facility, which includes a 50-yard qualification range and 50-yard tactical range, 20- 24 shooting lanes, control platforms, classroom, office, bathrooms and storage areas. The range will be located on property owned by UVA on Milton Road. RFP issued 1/8/14 for procurement of an architectural firm or individual to perform design services with a proposal receipt date of 2/6/14. Continuing negotiations with the regional partners to finalize operating, governance and funding agreements. $4,865,422 Agreement in place for operations & funding - 1st Quarter 2014 Complete design/site plan approval – 3rd Quarter 2014 Bid/award – 4th Quarter 2014, ~6-9 months construction Church Road Basin Stormwater Management Facility Retrofit Maintenance/enhancements to existing regional stormwater management facility including survey, design, and construction. Project will help the County meet required pollutant reductions mandated for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Working with Church of Incarnation to obtain easement. 60% design submitted October 2013. Design complete target February 2014. $424,739 Obtain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Permit (wetlands and stream) Bid 1st Quarter 2014 Award 2nd Quarter 2014, ~8 months construction Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter, CY 2013 Page 7 of 10 Agnor Hurt Elementary School Addition & Renovations Construction of 14,000 s.f. addition consisting of seven (7) classrooms, one (1) full- sized SPED classroom, faculty workroom, offices and associated support spaces. Renovations consist of security improvements at front entrance, upgrades to media center, and addition of air conditioning to the kitchen. Replacement of existing chiller, exhaust fans, roof top units and boilers. Site improvements include additional parking and modifications to student drop- off areas. A/E contract issued in Summer 2013 and being managed by Building Services. OFD currently transitioning with Building Services during the design phase to manage the construction phase. $412,500 (Design) $5,300,000 (FY15 CIP) Bid April 2014 Finance Department Teller Window Renovation Remodel of teller window areas to include new electrical and data outlets and various upgrades to teller stations. Receive bids for construction January 2014. Complete demolition work February 2014. $66,000 Substantial completion early March 2014 Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter, CY 2013 Page 8 of 10 MAINTENANCE PROJECTS In Construction Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone Mint Springs Valley Park Swimming Dock & Bridge Repairs Repair of swimming dock and foot bridge structures at Mint Springs Valley Park. Notice to Proceed issued for work to commence 1/28/14. $66,000 Substantial Completion February 2014 Stormwater Multi-Facility Maintenance Projects Includes maintenance (sediment removal/dredging) and upgrades to existing regional stormwater management facilities and channel (Four Seasons Lower Basin dredging, Four Seasons Upper channel improvements, and the Greenbrier Road forebay sediment removal. Phase 1 scope is complete and included surveying and analysis of existing facilities to determine required improvements and possible enhancements. Phase 2 scope includes design and construction of recommended improvements/enhancements. Four Seasons Upper Pond Dredging: Dewatering started and underway. Muck deeper than anticipated. Negotiating change order with contractor. Chain link fence installed around dewatered pond to assure public protection. Four Seasons Channel and Branchlands (Greenbrier Road) Forebay: Design nearly complete. Expect to bid 1st quarter 2014. $373,404 Four Seasons Pond Dredging - Substantial Completion 2nd Quarter 2014 Four Seasons Channel and Branchlands Forebay - Bid/Award 1st Quarter 2014, ~3- months construction In Design/Planning Phase Scope Status Project Budget Key Milestone Court Square AHU and Controls Replacement Replace existing air handling units (AHU) with new and replace pneumatic controls with digital. Finalizing Project Order with A/E firm under Term Contract to perform design services. Design complete target March 2014. $410,249 Bid/award 2nd Quarter 2014, ~6 months construction School Roof Replacement Projects Roof replacement projects at: 1) Yancey Elementary 2) Stone-Robinson Elementary 3) Cale Elementary Phase II Negotiating design services. TBD w/ Building Services Substantial completion August 2014 Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter, CY 2013 Page 9 of 10 Cale Elementary School Parking Lot Expansion Design and construction of an additional twenty-five (25) parking spaces on the southeast side of the school. A/E Project Order issued for design services January 2014. $22,500 (Design) Construction TBD w/ Building Services Substantial completion August 2014 Monticello High School Track Replacement Design and construction services to demolish and replace existing track at Monticello High School football stadium. Negotiating design services. TBD w/ Building Services Substantial completion August 2014 Ivy Creek School Exterior Masonry Wall Repairs Evaluate cracking and deterioration of exterior c.m.u. walls at various areas around perimeter of school, prepare plan for repair, and initiate construction to remedy the situation. Preparation of construction documents underway. Expect to Bid March 2014. $1,800 (Design) Construction TBD w/ Building Services Substantial completion August 2014 VMF Lift Replacement Phase III Phase III of multi-phased replacement of bus and vehicle lifts originally installed with the construction of the Vehicle Maintenance Facility (VMF) in the early 1980s. This phase replaces one (1) bus lift. Negotiating design services and equipment (lift fabrication) contracts. Expect to Bid (lift demolition, building modifications, and lift installation) March 2014. $11,090 (Design fee proposal) $93,370 (Lift quote, cooperative procurement) Construction TBD w/ Building Services Substantial completion August 2014 Office of Facilities Development Capital Projects Status Report – 4th Quarter, CY 2013 Page 10 of 10 FUTURE PROJECTS FY14 Revenue Sharing Projects 1. Old Lynchburg Road Walkway Upgrade 2. Avon Street Walkway/ Crosswalks Phase 1 3. Rio Road (Meadowcreek Pkwy to Stonehenge) 4. US Rte 250 West, Crozet (Harris Teeter) VDOT Kickoff meeting completed January 2014. $1,500,000 Work with VDOT to split projects into separate UPCs. Page 1 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project: Crozet Library Building Description: Design and construction of a 23,000 square foot, LEED certified library building, which includes space for complementary uses such as public meeting rooms and community space. The primary mission of the new facility is to serve the library needs of the defined Western Albemarle service area with a concerted focus on both existing and emerging technologies and solutions that will support the library’s programming and best serve its patrons. Status: Library (upper level) – Opened to public and grand opening ceremony September 2013. Punch list complete December 2013. Lease Area (lower level) – Lease area upfit work substantially complete December 2013 and larger tenant space occupied. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Bid Opening Date 03/28/12 03/28/12 0 Notice to Proceed 07/01/12 07/01/12 0 Excavation Complete 11/09/12 11/12/12 3 Structural Elements Complete 01/24/13 01/24/13 0 Building Dried-In 04/23/13 04/30/13 7 Finishes Complete 05/14/13 07/31/13 78 Site Work Complete 06/13/13 07/25/13 42 Substantial Completion (Library) 06/30/13 08/16/13 47 Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project Budget: Baseline [June 2012] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 8,867,491 $ 8,654,470 $ 213,021 Future Appropriations $ - $ $ - Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 8,867,491 $ 8,654,470 $ 213,021 Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 1,703,199 $ 1,803,624 $ (100,425) Hard Costs $ 6,596,550 $ 6,842,504 $ (245,954) Contingency $ 567,742 $ 8,342 $ 559,400 Total $ 8,867,491 $ 8,654,470 $ 213,021 Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 83,975 Paid to Date: $ 8,497,740 A/E Contract (Grimm+Parker Architects) Construction Contract (MB Contractors) Original Agreement $ 585,000 Bid Award $5,810,000 Approved Changes $ 421,834 Approved Changes $ 335,672 Pending Changes $ Pending Changes $ TOTAL $1,006,834 TOTAL $6,145,672 A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Increase size; change schedule (FY09) $226,755 2 – Add geotechnical investigation (FY09) $8,945 3 – Add LEED service (FY10) $120,450 4 – Change to phased plan, delete FFE design & reduce CA (FY10) ($161,295) 5 – Parking lot SWM & ARB review (FY12) $7,590 6 – Restore CA & FFE design; adjust for scope & schedule (FY13) $206,915 7 – Basement upfit and site plan changes $12,465 Construction Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Slope drain & waterline revisions $5,323 2 – Waterline changes in Crozet Ave; credit for 2500lb elevator vs 3000lb $54,374 3 – Locate fiber optic line Crozet Ave; additional waterproofing at basement $2,865 4 – Increase column size; floor box revisions (electrical) 5 – Mechanical breaker change and sprinkler relocation 6 – Tube steel at clerestory and re-routing roof drains 7 – Site utility conduit 8 – Add shelving, change flooring, conference room window 9 – Add casework, window counter changes, signage $14,362 $2,855 $2,970 $42,475 $30,341 $44,265 10 – Propane tank install; communications conduit, PIV fire alarm connection, etc. 11 – Add conduits, unused allowances/ credits 12 – Upfit lease area 13 – Revised landscaping plan; revised electrical box for elevator phone 14 – Relocate light fixtures & switch $16,095 ($31,059) $141,366 $7,674 $1,766 Page 1 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project: Crozet Streetscape Enhancements Phase II Phase 2 (Crozet Avenue) and 2A (Main Street and Alleys) Description: Phase 2 and 2A of the Crozet Streetscape Enhancements includes relocation of overhead electric and utility lines from Crozet Avenue, new stormwater drainage system, first block of Main Street (Library Avenue), and pedestrian, vehicular, and streetscape enhancements along Crozet Avenue from The Square to Tabor Street. Status: Phase 2 – Crozet Avenue: • Notice to Proceed issued for work to Linco, Inc!! Mobilization expected early February. Project SharePoint site access established for team collaboration. Project web page established to provide project information and construction updates. • Utility relocations completed and poles removed January 2014. • Substantial Completion October 31, 2014. Phase 2A – Main Street and Alleys: All work completed and Library Avenue accepted into State secondary road system. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Design Complete 08/30/12 02/28/13 182 Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 08/30/12 07/31/13 335 VDOT Approval to Advertise 09/30/12 09/04/13 339 Utility Relocation Complete 10/30/12 10/25/13 360 Advertise 09/30/12 09/11/13 346 Bid Opening Date 10/30/12 10/16/13 351 VDOT "Authorize to Award" 11/30/12 11/13/13 348 Pre-construction Meeting 11/30/12 12/11/13 376 Sign Contract; Issue NTP 11/30/12 01/16/14 412 Community Meeting 11/30/12 12/03/13 368 Ph-A Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk Complete 06/01/13 06/27/14 391 Ph-B Curb, Drainage & Sidewalk Complete 11/01/13 09/22/14 325 Paving Complete 12/01/13 10/31/14 334 Substantial Completion 01/30/14 10/31/14 274 Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project Budget: Baseline [March 2007] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 3,700,000 $ 4,494,481 $ (794,481) Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ - Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,494,481 $ (794,481) Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 590,000 $ 890,703 $ (300,703) Hard Costs $ 2,770,000 $ 3,515,698 $ (745,698) Contingency $ 340,000 $ 88,079 $ 251,921 Total $ 3,700,000 $ 4,494,481 $ (794,481) Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 2,281,727 Paid to Date: $ 2,040,235 A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract (Ph 2A – Library Ave) Original Agreement $379,000 Piedmont Concrete Contractors Approved Changes $163,761 COMPLETE (FY11) $780,168 Pending Changes $ 0 TOTAL A/E Change Orders: $542,761 Construction Contract (Ph 2 – Crozet Ave) Linco, Inc. No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Jarmans Gap Road interim storm system & historic resources (FY09) $41,500 2 – Additional plats & transportation planning services (FY09) $12,625 3 – Main Street extension to proposed Library entrance (FY09) $24,000 4 – Conceptual Downtown Plaza improvements (FY09) $9,750 5 – Additional plats (FY10) $2,750 6 – Temporary tie-in of new Main Street (FY10) $21,000 7 – Water & sewer relocation design (FY10) $7,300 8 – Library storm sewer advance work (FY12) $5,961 9 – Finalize const. documents (FY13) $38,875 Bid Award $1,474,350 Approved Changes $ Pending Changes $ TOTAL $1,474,350 Construction Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount Page 1 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project: Crozet North Sidewalk Description: Provide for pedestrian safety by replacing or constructing approximately 1100 feet of sidewalk and drainage improvements along the west side of Crozet Avenue from Saint George Avenue to Crozet Elementary School. County and Revenue Sharing funds are being used to provide the sidewalk from St. George Avenu e to Crozet Elementary School. A Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Grant provides improved pedestrian crossing at the school and extends sidewalk to Ballard Drive. Status: Crozet Avenue North Sidewalk: Expect VDOT authorization to proceed with right-of-way and easement acquisition preparations in January 2014; obtain approval of “just compensation” and authorization to proceed with each acquisition. Obtain VDOT approval of Final Plans & Project Manual and authorization to advertise - target 2nd quarter 2014; approximately 4 months construction. Safe Routes to School Sidewalk: “No Award Letter” issued December 18th since bids received 10/29/13 were over budget. Identifying design changes that reduce cost for review with VDOT and ACSA; and evaluating use of proffer funds to fully fund project. Targeting re-advertise 1st quarter and construct 2nd quarter 2014; approximately 3 months construction. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Revenue Sharing Project (St. George to Crozet ES) Design Complete 02/14/13 02/28/14 379 Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 03/01/14 351 VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 04/01/14 351 Bid Opening Date 05/31/13 04/28/14 332 Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 06/30/13 06/01/14 336 Curb & Drainage Complete 08/31/13 08/01/14 335 Sidewalks Complete 09/30/13 09/01/14 336 Paving Complete 10/15/13 10/01/14 351 Substantial Completion 10/15/13 11/01/14 382 SRTS Grant Project (Crozet ES to Ballard Dr.) Design Complete 04/30/12 02/20/13 296 Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 05/31/12 12/30/12 213 VDOT Approval to Advertise 06/30/12 07/30/13 395 Bid Opening Date 08/15/12 10/28/13 439 Re-advertise Project 01/08/14 03/01/14 52 Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 09/15/12 05/30/14 622 Waterline Relocation Complete 04/15/14 06/15/14 61 Curb & Drainage Complete 11/15/12 06/30/14 592 Sidewalks Complete 11/30/12 07/15/14 592 Paving Complete 12/15/12 07/30/14 592 Substantial Completion 12/15/12 07/30/14 592 Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project Budget: Baseline Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 661,400 $ 985,787 $ (324,387) Future Appropriations * $ - $ (60,000) $ 60,000 Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 661,400 $ 925,787 $ (264,387) Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 104,200 $ 278,329 $ (174,129) Hard Costs $ 497,200 $ 575,115 $ (77,915) Contingency $ 60,000 $ 72,343 $ (12,343) Total $ 661,400 $ 925,787 $ (264,387) Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 25,956 Paid to Date: $ 140,887 * Future transfer to South Pantops Drive/Sate Farm Boulevard revenue sharing sidewalk project A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Assoc.) – RS Sidewalk Construction Contract Original Agreement $40,000 Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ 1,600 Approved Changes $ Additional Agreement $31,596 Pending Changes $ TOTAL $73,196 TOTAL $ A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 - Eliminate bid/construction observation; add plats & final engineering services. Additional Agreement: Waterline relocation design, right-of-way acquisition and construction phase services $ 1,600 $31,596 A/E Contract (Anhold Associates) – SRTS Original Agreement $20,697 Approved Changes $2,524 Pending Changes $ 0 TOTAL $23,221 A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Prepare documents to relocate existing waterline conflicting with proposed stormwater utilities $2,524 Construction Contract Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ Pending Changes $ TOTAL $ Page 1 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project: South Pantops Drive/State Farm Boulevard Sidewalk Improvements Description: Provide for pedestrian safety along the north side of South Pantops Drive and west side of State Farm Boulevard by constructing 3500 feet of curb, gutter and sidewalk which will serve several residential, business, and commercial establishments. Construction will be partially funded with FY13 Revenue Sharing Funds. Status: Expect VDOT authorization to proceed with right-of-way and easement acquisition preparations in January 2014; obtain approval of “just compensation” and authorization to proceed with each acquisition. Obtain VDOT approval of Final Plans & Project Manual and authorization to advertise - target 2nd quarter 2014; approximately 4 months construction. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Design Complete 12/31/12 10/01/13 274 Right-of-Way / Easements Complete 03/15/13 03/01/14 351 VDOT Approval to Advertise 04/15/13 04/01/14 351 Bid Opening Date 06/01/13 04/28/14 331 Notice to Proceed / VDOT Approval of Contract 07/01/13 06/01/14 335 Curb & Drainage Complete 09/01/13 08/01/14 334 Sidewalks Complete 10/01/13 08/01/14 304 Paving Complete 10/15/13 09/15/14 335 Substantial Completion 10/31/13 11/01/14 366 Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project Budget: Baseline [July 2008] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 512,000 $ 935,570 $ (423,570) Future Appropriations $ - $ 60,000 $ (60,000) Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 512,000 $ 995,570 $ (483,570) Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 60,000 $ 276,305 $ (216,305) Hard Costs $ 410,000 $ 645,424 $ (235,424) Contingency $ 42,000 $ 73,841 $ (31,841) Total $ 512,000 $ 995,570 $ (483,570) Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 40,295 Paid to Date: $ 97,356 * Future transfer from Crozet Ave North revenue sharing sidewalk project. A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract Original Agreement $39,116 Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ 9,369 Approved Changes $ Additional Agreement $49,595 Pending Changes $ TOTAL $98,080 TOTAL $ A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Update survey (FY09) $ 600 2 – Additional survey (FY09) $ 6,950 3 – Add topo survey, plats & final engineering; eliminate bidding/ construction observation (FY12) $ 1,819 Additional Agreement (RS funds): Bidding/construction phase; easement acquisition services $49,595 Page 1 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project: Northside Library and Storage Facility Description: Provide a permanent location for the Northside Library and long-term County warehouse/storage space by repurposing an existing building located on property recently purchased at 705 Rio Road West (formerly Phillips Building Supply). The new facility would provide approximately 30,000 square feet of library space, and over 20,000 square feet of warehouse space. The Northside Library is currently located in leased space at Albemarle Square, and the County warehouse/storage space is currently located in leased space at the former Comdial building on Seminole Trail. The new facility will eliminate the need for those two leased spaces. Status: Project advertised January 15th. Mandatory pre-bid meeting scheduled for January 23rd with bid opening February 12th. Award and issue Notice to Proceed March 2014; storage area approximately 3 months construction, library approximately 8 months construction. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Schematic design Complete 09/15/13 09/15/13 0 Design Complete 12/31/13 12/31/13 0 Bid Opening Date 01/31/14 02/12/14 12 Notice to Proceed 02/15/14 03/01/14 14 Demolition Complete 03/01/14 03/17/14 16 Site Work Complete 05/01/14 05/15/14 14 Substantial Completion: Basement Storage Area 05/01/14 05/15/14 14 Library 09/30/14 10/15/14 15 Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project Budget: Baseline [July 2011] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 11,820,373 $ 11,810,438 $ 9,936 Future Appropriations $ - $ 9,935 $ (9,935) Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 11,820,373 $ 11,820,373 $ 0 Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 3,764,625 $ 3,940,004 $ (175,379) Hard Costs $ 7,402,498 $ 7,346,906 $ 55,592 Contingency $ 653,250 $ 533,463 $ 119,787 Total $ 11,820,373 $ 11,820,373 $ - Balance = Funding - Costs $ 0 $ - Encumbered: $ 201,688 Paid to Date: $ 3,606,131 A/E Contract (HB+M Architects) Construction Contract Original Agreement $736,500 Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ 3,450 Approved Changes $ Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ TOTAL $739,950 TOTAL $ A/E Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – Traffic & access analysis $3,450 Page 1 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project: Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Addition/Renovation Description: Addition (7,500 sq. ft.) to Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department (STVFD) and full renovation of the existing facilities (~7,500 sq. ft.). Total scope includes a 2-bay addition, an expansion of living quarters and full renovation of the existing facility to bring it to code and improve the facilities to properly support the highest call volume station in the County. Status: Construction underway and approximately 25% complete as of December 2013. Completed tasks include: new concrete curb at new entrance; slab-on-grade; concrete walls; new framing in existing building; and CenturyLink underground cabling relocation. Planned tasks include: Interior masonry and elevator shaft complete January 2014; Dominion Virginia Power completion of 3 phase power installation and structural steel in place February 2014; roof complete March 2014; start drywall hanging April 2014; and HVAC units running to condition space for finishes May 2014. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Pre-design Complete 01/11/13 01/18/13 7 Design Complete 03/22/13 04/26/13 35 Bid Opening Date 04/11/13 05/31/13 50 Notice of Intent to Award 04/18/13 07/23/13 96 Notice to Proceed 04/29/13 08/26/13 119 Renovation Demo Complete 06/14/13 10/13/13 121 Excavation - Addition Complete 07/05/13 10/04/13 91 Structural Elements Complete 09/06/13 02/28/14 175 Building Dried-In 11/29/13 03/21/14 112 Finishes Complete 02/28/14 08/15/14 168 Site Work Complete 03/21/14 08/01/14 133 Substantial Completion 04/04/14 09/09/14 158 Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project Budget: Baseline [May 2012] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 3,836,670 $ 3,857,538 $ (20,868) Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ - Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 3,836,670 $ 3,857,538 $ (20,868) Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 426,320 $ 524,078 $ (97,758) Hard Costs $ 3,126,500 $ 3,142,623 $ (16,123) Contingency $ 283,850 $ 190,837 $ 93,013 Total $ 3,836,670 $ 3,857,538 $ (20,868) Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ 2,391,268 Paid to Date: $ 1,120,634 A/E Contract (DJG, Inc. – includes Add. & Renov.) Construction Contract (Kenbridge Construction) Original Agreement $428,444 Bid Award $3,001,754 Approved Changes $ 10,946 Approved Changes $ 10,882 Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ 36,218 TOTAL $439,390 TOTAL $3,048,854 A/E Change Orders: Construction Change Orders: No. & Brief Description Amount No. & Brief Description Amount 1 – MEP redesign for Value Engineering changes $10,946 1 – Underground sewer lines under engine bay floor; sanitary pipe to tie-in washer boxes to sewer line in laundry room 114; add mop sink in room 016 2 (Pending) – Replace doors and hardware at several locations to comply with code requirements for fire rating Pending Future – Dumpster rental for demolition work; civil/structural drawing discrepancies; ceiling tile upgrade; plumbing/HVAC issues; civil conflicts at sewer line $10,882 $4,330 $31,888 Page 1 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project: Police Firearms Training Facility Description: Design and construction of a regional indoor firearms training facility, which includes a 50-yard qualification range and 50-yard tactical range, 20-24 shooting lanes, control platforms, classroom, office, bathrooms and storage areas. The range will be located on property owned by UVA on Milton Road. Status: In December 2013 the Office of the Attorney General announced a grant award of approximately $2.9M to fund capital costs associated with the regional public safety firearms training center which assumes the participation of the County, City and UVA at the Milton location. The grant award stipulates that all funds will be expended on construction and/or range hardware costs within 24 months of the award. Board directed staff to staff to proceed with the procurement of an architectural firm or individual to perform design services and a RFP was issued on 1/8/14 with a proposal receipt date of 2/6/2014. The Board endorsed the Public Engagement Plan as presented with a request to extend the notification area. The Executive office continues negotiations with the regional partners to finalize Operating, Governance and Funding Agreements and working with County Attorney to draft a land lease arrangement with UVA. Project Schedule: Detailed schedule to be developed with A/E. Due to funding requirements from the state, the total time to complete the project is 24 months starting on December 18, 2013. It is estimated to take approximately 15-20 months from authorization to solicit the design firm to complete the project. Schedule milestones are listed below: Project Milestone Schedule – Firearms Training Center Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) A/E Procurement Complete 4/7/2014 4/7/2014 Pre-design Complete 05/26/14 05/26/14 0 Design Complete 09/29/14 09/29/14 0 Bid Opening Date 10/30/14 10/30/14 0 Notice to Proceed 11/27/14 11/27/14 0 Excavation Complete TBD 0 Site Work Complete TBD 0 Substantial Completion 08/25/15 08/25/15 0 Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project Budget: Baseline [January 2014] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 1,375,601 $ 1,375,601 $ - Future Appropriations $ 589,821 $ 589,821 $ - Additional Source (Grant) $ 2,900,000 $ 2,900,000 $ - Total $ 4,865,422 $ 4,865,422 $ - Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 454,191 $ 454,191 $ - Hard Costs $ 4,079,824 $ 4,079,824 $ - Contingency $ 331,407 $ 331,407 $ - Total $ 4,865,422 $ 4,865,422 $ - Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ - Encumbered: $ - Paid to Date: $ - A/E Contract Construction Contract Original Agreement $ Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ Approved Changes $ Pending Changes $ Pending Changes $ TOTAL $ TOTAL $ Page 1 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project: Church Road Basin Stormwater Management Facility Retrofit Description: The Church Road Basin project includes maintenance and enhancements to the existing regional stormwater management facility. The project scope includes survey, design, and construction. The County is required (through the DCR-issued stormwater permit) to reduce pollutant discharges (nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment) to impaired waters having approved TMDLs, or pollution diets. This project will help the County meet required pollutant reductions mandated for the Cheasapeake Bay watershed. Status: Church of the Incarnation approved conceptual design and easement. Submit USACE permit application and obtain permit approval. 60%-design complete October 2013; design complete target February 2014. Bid 1st quarter, award 2nd quarter 2014, approximately 8 months construction. Project Schedule: Phase Baseline Schedule Actual/Forecast Variance (days) Charrette Mtg 05/31/13 06/12/13 12 60%-design Complete 07/26/13 10/25/13 91 Design Complete 11/08/13 02/28/14 112 Advertise 01/10/14 03/07/14 56 Bid Opening Date 02/28/14 04/03/14 34 Notice to Proceed 04/01/14 05/01/14 30 Substantial Completion 12/14/14 12/14/14 0 Page 2 of 2 February 5, 2014 Project Budget: Baseline [April 2013] Current Estimate At Completion Variance Funding Appropriated to Date $ 449,739 $ 424,739 $ 25,000 Future Appropriations $ - $ - $ - Additional Source $ - $ - $ - Total $ 449,739 $ 424,739 $ 25,000 Use of Funds Soft Costs $ 98,739 $ 98,739 $ - Hard Costs $ 265,000 $ 190,000 $ 75,000 Contingency $ 86,000 $ 86,000 $ - Total $ 449,739 $ 374,739 $ 75,000 Balance = Funding - Costs $ - $ 50,000 Encumbered: $ 18,368 Paid to Date: $ 58,489 A/E Contract (Kimley-Horn & Associates) Construction Contract Original Agreement $72,772 Bid Award $ Approved Changes $ 0 Approved Changes $ Pending Changes $ 0 Pending Changes $ TOTAL $72,772 TOTAL $ Project Vendor Contract Type Amount CO No.Scope Date Approved by CE Office Reason: >25% or >$50K Police Firing Range Kimley-Horn & Associates A/E $34,708.00 3 Completion of a Sound Model study, construction of a 3 dimensional computer model to determine sound levels within a 2 mile radius, conduct acoustic analysis for up to 3 alternative noise mitigation designs, produce a report based on this analysis, participate in a teleconference to discuss the results of the study, refine the existing range sketch, attend one meeting to prepare for BOS presentation and develop and review the feasibility and cost for up to 3 noise mitigation construction options. CO generated based on BOS request for information. 01/31/13 >25% Courts Study PSA-Dewberry A/E $1,800.00 2 Attendance at a working meeting with key stakeholders (Judges, Commonwealth Attorney, Sheriff, Court Clerks, etc.) to provide professional guidance based on knowledge of courts, courthouse design, building industry, and courts project. 02/19/13 >25% COB McIntire Brick RePointing Dominion Waterproofing & Construction Services Construction $2,849.00 3 Remove existing concrete window sill and replace with new precast window sill; remove rotten window trim around 2 windows and replace with new trim. 05/03/13 >25% $9,050.00 1 Additional overhead service added to scope and two service locations were changed at the request of business owners. 05/20/13 >25% $2,116.73 2 Provide generator to 3 businesses during power outage and relocate the temporary alley lighting meter and meter base. 11/14/13 >25% $95,189.15 1 Install conduits, electric manholes, cables and associated components to extend the utility relocation across the site of the proposed "Claudius Center". 06/14/13 >$50K $75,000.00 2 Additional man-hours/material due to unforeseen underground obstacles and soil conditions; additional expense associated with removing and replacing existing asphalt; deeper excavation depths for manholes and trenches; need for shoring due to the extra depth; unanticipated asphalt demolition & replacement, and working conditions impacted by unusual rain totals. 07/22/13 >25% >$50K $50,000.00 3 Additional man-hours/material required to complete the utility relocation. Actual conditions have slowed progress; the most significant being the unexpected difficulty in converting some of the overhead service and panels to the new underground service connections. Many of these outages also required Dominion crews to work outside normal working hours to minimize interruptions to the operation of the businesses. 10/17/13 >25% Jack Jouett Middle School Masonry Repairs Piney Ridge Contracting & Consulting, Inc.Construction $12,254.86 1 Additional masonry wall repair (south wall) 07/18/13 >25% Grimm + Parker A/E $12,465.00 7 Construction drawings and construction administration for upfitting lower level spaces for tenants; civil engineering services for as-built drawings and easement plat for ACSA water facilities; and site plan revision for minor changes. 10/23/13 >25% MB Contractors Construction $141,366.00 12 Tenant space upfit (lower level), rework base at stone walls, door lock changes, and enlargement of dumpster gate opening. 11/08/13 >$50K Belvedere Boulevard Bond Project Phase 2 S. L. Williamson Company, Inc.Construction $88,586.89 3 Add demolition/replacement or saw-cutting/repair of ADA aprons (24 total) at the corners of street intersections; deduct from contract portions of sidewalk already constructed by home builders. 12/20/13 >$50K Crozet Library Change Orders Requiring County Executive Office Approval January 1, 2013 - December 31, 2013 Crozet Streetscape - Utility Relocation Dominion Virginia Power Construction Design Electric, Inc.ServicesCrozet Streetscape - Convert OH Meter Bases to UG Meter Bases County of Albemarle Office of Facilities Development (OFD) Project Change Order Guidelines and Procedures May 2010 (revised October 2012) Purpose The purpose of this document is to prescribe procedures for approving changes to the design requirements and/or the scope of construction which causes an adjustment to the Contract Amount or Contract Time of a project while under design or under construction. Guidelines Projects under design or construction require the execution of a "Change Order" to change the design requirements and/or the scope of construction which in turn requires an adjustment of the Contract Amount or Contract Time. A proposed Change Order will be considered: 1. For changes in scope/work required by the County; 2. For unforeseen site conditions during construction; 3. When essential design/work has been inadvertently omitted; 4. To correct errors/omissions in plans and specifications; 5. To correct design/work when concealed conditions are exposed and found to differ from construction documents or available information; and 6. When unavoidable events or weather cause delays and the need for additional time for completion of work. Change Orders shall be recommended by the Project Manager and approved by the Director of Facilities Development or his designee in advance of the proposed work being performed. It is the Project Manager's responsibility to assure the project budget, including contingency, is sufficient to cover the change order without impact to the overall project budget. Any proposed change that substantially alters the original concept or scope as approved by the Board, or that will increase the amount of the contract(s) such that actual costs will exceed the amount appropriated for the project, will require approval of the Board of Supervisors in advance of the issuance of such change. Project Change Order Guidelines and Procedures Page 2 of 2 Procedures 1. Change Orders shall be administered in accordance with procedures outlined in the Virginia Construction and Professional Services Manual and contract documents. 2. Change Orders and justifications shall be prepared on a form approved by the Director of Facilities Development. 3. Change Orders for professional services shall be prepared by the Project Manager; Change Orders for construction shall be prepared by the Project Manager or the Architect/Engineer if required pursuant to the A/E contract. All supporting documentation must be attached to the change order (A/E fee estimate, contractor, sub and sub-sub contractor estimates). 4. Any single change order in excess of $50,000, or any change order that, when added to prior approved change orders, would exceed 25% of the original contract amount, will require advance approval of the County Executive or his designee. The procedures for obtaining approval for change orders that meet this criteria are as follows: a. Project Manager prepares a change order justification memo to the Director of OFD. Justification memo outlines all change orders to date, justification for each, and impact to budget. b. Director of OFD prepares memo and forwards justification to County Executive Office for approval. c. Upon approval of the Executive’s Office, the change order will be routed for other approvals in accordance with paragraph 5 below. 5. If Executive approval is not required, or once Executive approval is obtained in accordance with item 4, the Project Manager prepares a change order recommendation memo (example maintained by OFD), attaches three signed originals of the change order, all supporting documentation, and routes the change order for approval to the following (using OFD's standard routing cover sheet): a. Director of Facilities Development b. Director of Sponsoring Department (Schools Building Services, Parks, General Services, etc.) c. County Attorney d. Purchasing 6. Once the change order is approved, the Project Manager sends a fully executed copy to the A/E or Contractor, as the case may be. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE OFFICE OF FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT (OFD) CONTINGENCY GUIDELINES and USE October 19, 2012 Contingency An amount added to an estimate to allow for items, conditions, or events for which the state, occurrence, or effect is uncertain and that experience shows will likely result, in aggregate, in additional costs. Contingency can also be referred to as a risk allowance to account for known or unknown risks to a project. Purpose Contingency is an integral part of the total estimated costs of a project and a critical tool in allowing a project to proceed on schedule. The goal of a contingency is to plan for unexpected financial obligations or costs that would be disruptive to the schedule or divert resources (budget) from other projects or needs. The earlier the stage of project development, the more uncertainty there is in the estimate and a larger contingency typically should be budgeted. Establishing an adequate contingency prepares the County, financially and operationally, to address unforeseen and unpredictable conditions that typically arise during the design/construction phase. Because many factors can make a cost estimate inaccurate, especially during the initial phase of planning a project, setting aside an amount, usually a percentage of the total estimate, is critically important for the financial planning of a project. Contingency serves three core purposes: To account for errors and omissions in the construction documents. To pay for unknown conditions, such as excess rock, beyond the allowance or price escalation of a product (i.e. copper). To accommodate necessary construction changes that are realized on -site during construction. Contingency Guidelines and Use Page 2 of 4 General Rule and Practice There is no “one-size-fits-all” contingency amount. The amount varies based on the nature and complexity of the project. For example, the contingency allowance for site work and renovation projects is normally higher due to the unknown and unforeseen conditions that may exist (i.e. rock, unmarked utilities, and existing unknown building conditions such as asbestos). Contingency enables the project to proceed with minimal interruptions or delays to the schedule, and mitigates any costs associated with delays. Contingency is not an unnecessary expense, but rather a critical and necessary component of project costs and a tool to complete the project on time and within budget The County budgets a project contingency that varies throughout the life of a project but typically is 5-10% above the expected budget (soft costs – i.e. design, surveying, etc., plus hard costs – i.e. construction) required in order to deliver the work. Contingency is a reserve to enable the project manager and owner to deal with the unexpected, unplanned events during the course of the project. The complexity of the project dictates the size of the contingency, normally measured in a percent of total project cost, and will change appropriately as the project is taken from concept to accepting the bid as risks become better defined and/or eliminated. Rules of thumb for the percentage of a contingency throughout a project are as follows: Concept/Desk Estimate: ~ 20-25% At 50%-75% Design: ~ 15-20% 100% design, pre-bid: ~10-15% Bid Opening/Notice to Proceed: ~5%-10% This practice is consistent with the Virginia Construction and Professional Services Manual and the American Institute of Architects. If the project contingency is not sufficient to fund the required changes, a request to the Board of Supervisors for approval of an additional appropriation is required for continuing the project. It is important to note that the contingency is not used to avoid making an accurate assessment of expected costs. It should also be noted that projects funded within a maintenance fund might carry less contingency within the project due to managing an overall contingency at the fund level. Tracking and Reporting of Contingency OFD utilizes a standard budget tracking worksheet that allows a baseline of the budget at the beginning of the project, which acts as a point of reference when executing the project for comparison of budget changes. Included in the baseline budget is a contingency amount that reflects the stage, complexity and risk of the project as previously described. As the project proceeds, the Project Manager updates the Estimate at Complete (EAC) which is the total costs anticipated for the project including completed work, committed work and anticipated work. Contingency Guidelines and Use Page 3 of 4 Project budgets are updated monthly, at a minimum, and are part of a monthly review conducted with project stakeholders and the Assistant County Executives. The following format provides an example of how OFD tracks and reports budget at a summary level. In the event total project costs are lower or higher than expected in the baseline, a line item titled “Balance=Funding- Costs” shows the potential difference. Use of Contingency Funds and Change Order Process Contingency funds are utilized by the Project Manager and owner to account for future, unanticipated costs not captured in the original planned budget (baseline). In the event contingency is required to cover costs associated with changes to contracts (i.e. design changes or construction changes), thresholds and approvals defined by the County’s Purchasing Manual are followed. Virginia Code § 2.2-4309(A) provides in part: “No fixed-price contract may be increased by more than twenty-five percent of the amount of the contract or $50,000, whichever is greater, without the advance written approval of ….. the governing body, in the case of political subdivisions.” Per the County Purchasing Manual, the County Executive’s Office acts as the designee of the Board of Supervisors for purposes of this review and approval. Proposed change orders shall receive this review whenever any single change order is in excess of $50,000, or any change order that, when added to prior approved change orders, exceeds 25% of the original contract amount. Any proposed change that substantially alters the original concept or scope as Contingency Guidelines and Use Page 4 of 4 approved by the Board, or that will increase the amount of the contract(s) such that actual costs will exceed the amount appropriated for the project, will require approval of the Board of Supervisors in advance of the issuance of such change. These practices and procedures are more restrictive than required by state law to assure close scrutiny of construction projects. Budget Impact The impact of budgeting project contingency is recognized during the Board of Supervisors review and approval of projects and appropriation of the budget to execute the project, typically during the CIP approval process. In the event a project overrun occurs that exceeds the project budget a new appropriation request is submitted for review and approval by the BOS. Examples of Contingency Use 1. Crozet Streetscape - unanticipated work arose as a result of negotiating the acquisition of an easement. In order to satisfy the property owner, and ultimately obtain their signature, the property owner required a redesign of a section of the sidewalk/landscape on the property that, while conforming with the original scope, required minor modifications to accommodate the property owner. 2. Old Mills Trails Pedestrian Bridges - an unsuitable soils condition was encountered requiring extensions of two of the three bridges. The project contingency could not support the additional work required to extend the bridges; therefore, the Board approved a transfer of funds from the Pantops Master Plan to the project budget to support the needed change order.