The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2001-05-02 ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of May 2, 2.001 May 8, 2001' Cell to order. AGENDA ITEM/ACTION · 5.2 Proclamation recognizing Historic Preservation Week. · ADOPTED, Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. There ;',~_.re none. Proclamation re~3gnizing the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians. ADOPTED, (Ms; Thomas presented to Organization at Conference. 1 Matters: Route 29 Corddor Development Study - Combined Phases !1/111 CONSENSUS that staff draft resolution and add to consent : for Board's review and approvel. Other Transportation Matters. Jim Bryan provided Board members with a copy of VdoT's construction projects, paving schedules and maintenance plans as of May, 2001. He will attempt to add traffic engineering and other issues in the coming months. Ms. Thomas suggested the information be fomrarded to the Clerk so that it can be included in the Board's packet for the Board meeting. Ms. Thomas referred to paving on Route 250 West. A citizen had asked about hardening the shoulders in that area. Mr. Bryan said he will look into the issue, Ms. Humphris said, at the Free Union headquarters, April was litter pickup on Routes 601 and 606. She does not see it listed for May. The leftover litter from Foxfield races is bad. She also asked how soon the Board can get a report on Foxfleid, Mr. Tucker suggested the Board receive a report later this month or in June: Ms. Humphris also added that there needs to be traffic control at the intersection of Old Garth Road and Barracks Road during Foxfield. Mr. Bowerman said he was impressed with VdoT's landscaping on Route 29 and with VdoT's replacement of trees that had not Ms. Humphris said in the latest newsletter from VACO, there is an article about VdoT's updating the State-wide lntermodal Long Range Transportation POlicy. The article states that the first workshop is scheduled for Chari0ttesvae in May. Mr. Juan Wade said this was discussed at the last MPO Technical Committee meeting. He thinks the date is May 17. He will find out the exact time and location of the meeting and pass that information onto the Board. Mr. Dorrier asked when is the public ~ Roads ASSIGNMENT was called to order at 9:05 a.m., by the Chairman. All BOS members present. AlSo present was Robert Tucker, Larry Davis and Ella Clerk: Forward signed ~esolution to Mr~,GuireWoods. D[a]~t language [foi-[-[ Board co[[u-l~[ef]i.s and forward to Wayne Cilimberg to develop final resolution for Board's review. Clerk: Include cornme,,ts in le[~er to Jim Bryan. scheduled. Mr. Bryan responded that the hearing is tentatively scheduled for mid-July; the exact date has not been set. Mr. Dorder said he wants to make sure that improvements to Route 20 are included in the list. Mr. Cilimberg said staff is currently updating the Priorities report for discussion at the June 6t~ m~cting. 7. School Board Presentation. o Mr. Ward said the School Board would like to work with the Board of Supervisors to review the budget cycle flmelines. The School Board would like to spread out the January to February timeframe so they could have more time to obtain feedback. Mr. Tucker suggested the two staffs look into this. o Ms. Thomas said during the Boards review of the site plan for the Baker-Butler School, mention was mede about protection of the stream. Mr. Ward said he would have A1 Reaser respond · Ms. Thomas asked for a copy of the recruitment document used in the tee£~er recruitment fairs. 8. Status of Tributary Strategy Program for the Piedmont Region of the James River, Doug Moseley, AMEC. · RECEIVED. 9. Response to Audit Committee Recomm~afions. · VOTED to accept the recommendations of staff in response to the December 6, 2000 Audit Committee as follows: · The BOS and School Board continue to receive preliminary end of the year reports by early October and the official external audit in November. · The BOS continue to receive quarterly financial reports in tJ~e new fonTat with copies available to the School Board. · The County continue to adhere.to the investment policies established in the 1994 Financial Policies. · Staff develop for the Board's review, a charter, which clearly outlines the mission, responsibilities and composition of the Audit Committee. · Staff to provide recommendations to the BOS in July on a carry-over: policy and a separate equipment, replacement and maintenance fund. · Expand the County's current Budget Division into an "ofr~e of Management and Budget Division (OMB)", rather than hiring an internal auditor, This includes expanding the role of the Budget Manager position and infusing the currently vacant Performance Coordinator position into the OMB. This to be done over the next 18 to 24 months. · Did not support staff developing a land acquisition policy. · SUPPORTED staff's recommendation to continue with the current Auditor contract to get through GAS-B4, as it would be disruptive to bring in a new auditor not familiar with ~ County's current system. Will look at rebidding contract alter that time. School Board staff: Provide info[m~on as requested. County Executive's ~aff: Proceed as directed by Board. Mr. Tucker said, sometime in the futura, he will provide the Board with infc~¥~-~3tion on a field or revenue auG[or. 10. Quarterly Financial Report. · RECEIVED. Closed Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. . At 11:41 a.m., the Board r~ to go into dosed session. o4. Certify Closed Session. Board reconvened at 1:53 p.m. and certified the closed - Work Se. ss'mn on Proposed Neighborhood Model. WORK SESSION HELD. Public hearing scheduled for May 16. Appointments. · REAPPOINTED Jerry E. Jones to the Jordan DevelOpment Corporation, with term to expire August 13, 2002. . REAPPOINTED A. C. Shackelford, Jr., and Joseph T. Samuels, Jr., to the ACE Committee, with terms to expire August 1, 2O04. . REAPPOINTED Robert J. Walters, Jr., to the Regional with 2004. Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. , Mr. Tucker mentioned that the School Board approved a 4~. percent merit increase for its ciasstfled employees inStead of the recommended 3.9 percenL (Since there was no quorum and the Board could not take action, he will revis~'t this issue at the M~y 9~ meefing~) · Ms. Thomas said the Rivanna Trails Foundation is asking that the County move fon~ard with appointing a committee on greenway development- She has spoken to Wayne Cilimberg who indicated that staff is preparing a plan of action for the Board's review on June 6TM. . Ms. Thomas mentioned that she and Charles Martin have met concerning the CHART Charge. The Board will receive in their next packet a copy ~ the goals and criteria for judging projects to discuss on May . · Ms. Thomas said she wilt be meeting with the EXACTA Sports people in about a week~ Anyone who is interested can accompany her. · Mr. Tucker said last week he, Larry Davis, Tom Foley and Jack KetSey attended a conference in Roanoke regarding er~ironmental management systems and howto handle hazardous waste materials. Staff will be working on some type . of system soon and develop a policy for the Board's rev~,cw. 19. Adjourn. . The m,~-~i~ was adjourned at 4:08 p.m. /ewc David R Bowerrnan Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. scotimille Charlotte Y. Hurnphris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Riv~ma Walter E l~rkins Sally H. Thomas ~amuel Miller May 14, 2001 Mr. Jim Bryan Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Transportation 701 VDOT Way Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. Bryan: At the Board of Supervisors' meeting on May 2,2001, the following comments regarding transportation matters were made: · Consensus that staff draft resolution, for the Board's review and approval, concerning the Route 29 Corridor Development Study - Combined Phases 117111; · You provided Board members with a copy of VdoT's construction projects, paving schedules and maintenance plans as of May, 2001. You indicated that you would attempt to add traffic engineering and other issues in the coming months. Ms. Thomas suggested the information be forwarded to the Clerk so that it can be included in the Board's packet for the Board meeting. (Note: if you want this information included in the Board's packet, it needs to be in my office, the Thursday prior to the Board meeting date.) · Ms. Thomas referred to paving on Route 250 WesL A citizen had asked about hardening the shoulders in that area. You indicated you would look into the issue. · Ms. Humphris said, at the Free Union headquarters, April was litter pickup on Routes 601 and 606. She does not see it listed for May. The leftover litter from Foxfield races is bad. · Mr. Bowerman said he was impressed with VdoTs landscaping on Route 29 and with VdoTs replacement of trees that had not survived. · Ms. Humphris said in the latest newsletter from VACO, there is an article about VdoT's updating the State-wide Intermodal Long Range Transportation Policy. The article states that the first workshop is scheduled for Charlottesville in May. Mr. Juan Wade said this was discussed at the last MPO Technical Committee meeting. He thinks the date is May 17. He will find out the exact time and location of the meeting and pass that information onto the Board. Printed on recycled paper Mr. Jim Bryan May 14, 2001 Page 2. Mr. Dorrier asked about the public hearing on Primary Roads. You indicated that the hearing is tentativdy scheduled for mid-July; the exact date has not been set. Mr. Dottier said he wants to make sure that improvements to Route 20 axe included in the list~ Mr. C'dimberg said staff is currently updating the Priorities report for discussion at the June 6a meeting. /EWC Robert W. Tucker, Jr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Juan Wade VIRGINIA STATE ASSOCIATION OF PARLIAMENTARIANS I4q-IEREAS, the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians nrill hoM its Annual Convention on May 4 through May 6, 2001, in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors uses parliamentary procedure for the orderly conduct of business; and WHEREAS, Thomas lefferson, a native of Albenu~rle County and the author of Jefferson's Manual of Parliamentar~ Practice is used as the parliamentary authority for the U. S. House of Representatives and U. S. Senate, and as a reference for many modern Parliamentary Authorities; and WHERFAS, the basic tenant of parliamentary procedures is to support free speech and that the voice of the minority shall always be heard, yet the vote of the majority shall prevail; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL I/ED, that L Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on behalf, of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, encourage ail citizens in government and civic groups to study and learn parliamentary procedure; and FURTHER RESOL IrE, that the Board of Supervisors extends its appreciation to the Virginia State Association of Parliamentarians and its host Unit, the Silver Gavel, for holding its Annual Convention in our historically rich, economically and agriculturally fertile County of Albemurle. CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPER VISORS HISTORIC PRESERVATION YVEEK WlIEREA~, the richness of Virginia's history is unparafleled across this vast nation; and WHEREAS, the richness of Albemarle County's history is recorded in nmnerous extant lmildings and structures of exceptional significance; and VVHEREAS, historie buildings and places connect us with that history, providingunlque character to Vir~'nia's communities that enhances tpmlity of life, economic development, education, and tourism; and WHEREAS, historic preservation, because it helps instill a sense ofeolnmunlty, is relevant for Albemarle County residents of all ages, aH walks of life, and aH ethnic baekgrounds; and WHEREAS, it is important to celebrate the role of history in mw lives and the contributions made by dedicated individuals who preserve the tangible aspects of the heritage that shape us as people of Mbemarle and as ~wginians; and WHEREAS, ~Rcstore, Renew, Rediscover Your Historic Neighborhood Schools" is the theme for National Preservation Week 2001, cosponsored by Albemarle County, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the National Trust for Historic Preservation; NOW, THEREI~ORE, I, Sally H. Thomas, Chairman, on beimlf of the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors, do hereby proelaim MAY 13 through May 19, 2001, as HISTORIC PRESERVATION WEEK and call upon the people of Albemarle County to join their fellow citizens across the state in recognizing and participating in this special observance~ CHAIRMAN ALBEMARLE BOARD 01~ COUNTY SUPERVISORS Dominion Resources Sen, ices, Inc. Legal P.O. Box 26(~¢~0 Richmond, VA _':~', _o nion April 17, 2001 STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION OF VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE000551 IN THE MATTER CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY d/b/a DOMINION VIRGINIA POWER FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN TO TRANSFER FUNCTIONAL AND OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF CERTAIN TRANSMISSION FACILITIES TO A REGIONAL TRANSMISSION ENTITY To: Local Government Officials Pursuant to the Order Prescribing Notice, Inviting Comments, and Setting Hearing (the Order) issued by the State Corporation Commission of Virginia on April 13, 2001, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Dominion Virginia Power") is hereby serving a copy of the Order on the Chairman of the Boards of Supervisors, Mayor, or Manager of any county, city, or town, or on equivalent officials in counties, towns, and cities having alternate forms of government in Dominion Virginia Power's service territory. Please take notice of the contents of the Order. Thank you. ~ Senior Counsel Enclosure VDOT CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY (MAY) CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS PAVING SCHEDULES MAINTENANCE PLANS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT STATUS May 1, 2001 Route Project Description Status 29 6029-002-121 C502 Seminole Trail Replacement and widening of Bridges over South Fork Rivanna River. Approach work and bridge construction continuing. Construction estimated to be complete Fall 2001 29 6029-002-129,C501 Seminole Trail - Improve sight distance at Int. Route 641 (Near Greene Co. Line) Construction started May 2001 637 0637-002-P52,N501 Dick Woods Road Gravel Road- Between Route 635 (Miller School Rd.) and Route 682 (Broad Axe Rd.) Clearing and grubbing and grading under way. Construction Estimated to be completed Fall 2001 605 0605-002-P57,N501 Durette Ridge Rd. Gravel Road - From Greene County Line to 1.3 miles East Greene Co. Line Clearing & Grubbing and grading Estimated Completion Date Fall 2001 791 0791-002-P56,N501 Wyant Lane Gravel Road - From Route 688 (Midway Rd.) to end of State Maintenance Construction Started April 2001. Clearing and grubbing and grading. Estimated Completion Date - July 2001 679 0679-002-P61 ,N501 Grassmere Road Gravel Road - From CSX Railroad to end of State Maintenance. Construction to Start August 2001 Estimated Completion Date - Nov. 2001 615 0615-002-P ,N501 Lindsay Road Gravel Road - From Route 639 (near CSX Railroad) to Louisa County Line Project to be advertised June 200t (Approx 75 day project) * Gravel Road Pr~ects PAVING SCHEDULES Rt. 250 west Rt, 250 west 4~30 - 5/4 PM-7F-00 (FROM RTE, 240 E. TO RTE, 240 WEST) PM-7B-01 (FROM RTE. 240 TO RTE.797) Rt. 250 west Rt. 20 south 5/7 - 5/11 PM-7B-01 (FROM RTE. 240 TO RTE. 797) PM-7B-01 (FROM RTE. 726 TO .42 MI. N. RTE.712) 5/14 - 5/18 Rt. 20 south PM-TB-01 (FROM RTE. 726 TO .42 MI N. RTE. 712) Rt. 614 PM-TF-00 (FROM RTE. 678 TO RTE. 671) 1-64 (work order) PM-7F-00 Rest Area (I-64, EBL AT 105 MILE MARKER) Rt. 20 south Rt, 29 south 5/21 - 5/25 PM-7B-01 (FROM RTE, 726 TO. 42MI. N.RTE.712) PM-7F-00 (FROM RTE. 760 TO .1MI NORTH RTE.710) Rt. 29 south Rt. 635 5/28 - 6/1 PM-7F-00 (FROM RTE, 697 TO RTE. 804) PM-7B-01 (FROM RTE. 692 TO .1 MI. SOUTH RTE.637) Shoulder stone, line painting to follow all pawng sections and installation of pavement markers on RTE 29. SCHEDULE SUBJECT TO CHANGE DUE TO WEATHER AND OTHER UNFORSEEABLE CONDITIONS, BOYD TAVERN HEADQUARTERS (WORK ACCOMPLISHED IN APRIL) TASKS LOCATION 1. Shoulder Work 2. Shoulder Repair 3. Grader Work 4. Secondary Skin Patching 5. Secondary Pothole Patching 6: Secondary Machining 7. Litter Pick-up Route 649 Route 20 Routes 20, 645, 741 Various Various Various BOYD TAVERN HEADQUARTERS (WORK FOR MAY) TASKS LOCATION 1. Patch Roads Set-up for Seal 2. Tree Removal 3. Haul Stone 4. Skin Patch 5. Machine where needed 6: Dead Animal & Litter Pick-up Routes 600, 616, 640, 686 Route 649-Jefferson Village Routes 600, 608, 612, 640, 641 Woodbrook Subdivision Secondary FREE UNION HEADQUARTERS (WORK ACCOMPLISHED 1N APRIL) TASKS LOCATION 1. Cleaned Drains 2. Repaired Shoulders 3. Machined Gravel Roads 4. Machined 5. Patched w/Motor Grader 6: Litter Pick-up 7. Traffic Control for Tree Crew 8. Removed Dead Tree & Brush 9. Worked on complaints and 911 calls 10. Good housekeeeping 11. Cleaned equipment Routes 601,609, 671,675,676, 743, 1602, 1603 Routes 614, 676, 677 All Route 855 Routes 664, 665 Routes 601,606 Route 654 Routes 29/250, 665. FREE UNION HEADQUARTERS (WORK FOR MAY) TASKS LOCATION 1. Patch w/Motor Grader 2. Clean Storm Drains & Drop Inlets 3. Machine & Apply Calcium Chloride 4. Patch Roads in Resurface Schedule 5. Replace Pipe if Needed 6: Mowing 7. Clean Bridges, Sec. Rds, Intersections 8. Contract Mowing Crew 9. Clean Gutters 10. Trim Bushes from Highway Signs Routes 609, 657, 659, 665 Route 29 Problem Areas Various Barracks Rd. Area & Sec. Rds Primary Routes Barracks Road Various KEENE HEAD UARTERS (WORK ACCOMPLISHED IN APRIL) TASKS LOCATION 1. Clean Ditch 2. Skin Patch 3. Hot Patch 4. Clean Pipe 5. Machine 6. Ditch 7. Good House Keeping Route 29 Route 618 Route 630 Routes 1802,1803,742 Routes 638, 711,713,714, 737, 760, 761,774 Route 715 KEENE HEADQUARTERS (WORK FOR MAY) TASKS LOCATION 1. Hot Patch 2. Skin Patch 3. Replace Pipe 4. Machine 5. Put Calcium on Dirt Roads 6: Mow Primary 7. Mow Secondary Routes 618, 715,719, 753 Routes 633,708, 712 Route 706 Routes 627, 697, 703,717, 721-723,735 Routes 704, 708, 712, 714, 718, 722-723,761,795 Routes 6, 20 Routes 602, 618, 625-627, 712, 715,721,723,726, 795 YANCEY MILLS HEADQUARTERS (WORK ACCOMPLISHED IN APRIL) TASKS LOCATION 1. Patch Roads 2. Machined 3. Removed Leaves from Ditches 4. Potholes 5. Cut Limbs Route 692 Routes 611,636-637, 688-689,745,758, 791,797, 825 Routes 635,636, 692 Routes 635-636, 684, 690-691,708 Route 637 YANCEY MILLS HEADQUARTERS. (WORK FOR MAY) TASKS LOCATION 1. Patch Roads 2. Shoulder Work 3. Machine Roads 4. Start Mowing 5. Patch For Seal 6. Replacement Stone Routes 635,692 Route 693 Secondary Secondary-Route 810 Secondary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Route 29 South Corridor Development Study SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: County of Albemarle Resolution STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Cilimberg AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2001 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: This study represents Phases II and III of a Study of the entire Route 29 corridor in Virginia from Gainesviile to the North Carolina border. Over the last two years various concepts have been developed by Parsons Transportation Group, Inc. as a consultant to VDOT for this study. Sally Thomas and Wayne Cilimberg, as Steering Committee and Technical Committee representatives from the County, respectively, have followed the study's progress and provided recommendation to the consultant and VDOT. The Board of Supervisors previously received a presentation regarding this study. A public hearing on the study was held at Red Hill Elementary School on January 18, 2001. Subsequently, on January 31, 2001 the County provided comment to VDOT regarding the study's preliminary recommendations. DISCUSSION: The County's comments regarding this study have consistently been as to the nature of improvements to Route 29 the study proposed in Albemarle County. As can be seen from the attached information recently provided by the consultant (Attachment A), in Albemarle County the study proposes a parkway with at-grade intersections and direct access to Route 29 occurring at a limited number of intersecting primary or secondary roads. New direct access would be severely limited and generally provided via service roads or connections to other secondary roads. The County had previously stated that it did not believe that controlled access through elimination of all individual access points and an extensive system of service roads and signalized intersections should be assumed as necessary for Albemarle County. Instead, the County stated that coordination of land use planning and transportation system planning through specifically incorporating the access management recommendations of the Phase I Corddor Study into the planning for the Route 29 South corridor in Albemarle and throughout the study area was warranted. No such references have been included in the final recommendations for the study. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that prior comments provided to VDOT and th e consultant are still valid and recommends the Board endorse those comments as stated below in the form of a resolution to be sent to VDOT and the consultant by June 1, 2001: · The area along the Rt. 29 South Corridor is NOT in the County's Development area. Data developed by the consultant and vedfied by the County does NOT project significant development in this area of the County through the study period. Therefore, the County does NOT believe controlled access through elimination of all individual access points and an extensive system of service roads and signalized intersections should be assumed as necessary for Albemarle County. The County DOES support the coordination of land use planning and transportation system planning through specifically ' incorporating the access management recommendations of the Phase I Corddor Study into the planning for the Route 29 South corddor in Albemarle and throughout the study area. Albemarle County believes that access management planning is a logical and viable recommendation for the Route 29 corridor south of Charlottesville. Through proper planning that balances land use and transportation priorities in the particular sections of the corridor in the County, appropriate access management measures can be identified and pursued. AGENDA TITLE: Route 29 South Corridor Development Study May 2, 2001 Page 2 Use the "Parkway" design cross-section in Albemarle County, WITHOUT service roads and limited access which should NOT be used in Albemarle County. Under NO scenario should the "Freeway" design concept be used in Albemarle County. Furthermore, it is not anticipated that signalization of intersections will be necessary in Albemarle County, but in NO case is reservation for interchanges at any Albemarle County intersections necessary. Remove the term "to extent practical "fi`om any Comprehensive Plan references in the guidelines for developing alternatives. Double-track reil line in corddor to provide increased capacity for fi`eight and passenger service. Support one additional AMTRAK train per day along entire corridor as wel as new Trans-Dominion Express service between Charlottesville and Lynchburg. Make sure that references to the Trans-Dominion Express reflect its current status. Include a park and ride facility at the intersection of Routes 29 and 6 in the list of recommended facilities. This would replace the current informal parking that is occuring at this location. Emphasize that transit and pedestrian improvements need to be coordinated and connected to make these alternatives successful in the corridor. Include transit with ride-share for internet match systems. 01.094 PARSONS ' PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC:. Barton-Aschman · De Leuw, Cather · Steinman 11320 Random Hills Road. Suite 100 · Fair[ax. Virginia 22030 · (703) 352-1163 · Fax: (703) 385-1147 RECEIVED April9,2001 APR 1 ? 2001 PLANNING AND GOMMUNITY DFVELOPMENT Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg Director of Planning & Community Development Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Reference: Route 29 Corridor Development Study -- Combined Phases II/III March 30 20001 Steering Committee Meeting Dear Mr. Cilimberg: The final Steering Committee meeting for the Route 29 Corridor Study (Phases II/Iti) was held on March 30, 2001 at the VDOT Lynchburg District Office. We would like to thank all of you for participating in this study and providing us with guidance and direction as we developed a transportation corridor plan for this 135-mile stretch of Route 29. While there were divergent opinions about ways to improve this corridor and no. plan could achieve 100 percent support by all jurisdictions, we believe that the final plan reflects the guidelines that we developed early in the study and respects all of the different viewpoints that were expressed by our study committees, local jurisdictions, and the general public. A summary of the discussion at the March 30 meeting is enclosed for your review along with copies of the meeting handouts. You will note in the meeting summary that there was discussion about incorporating resolutions by local governing bodies into the final report. Such resolutions, whether they endorse the study recommendations, endorse them with reservations, or do not endorse the recommendations, will be included in the final document. If your jurisdiction was not represented at the Steering Committee meeting, we invite you to provide us with formal feedback. In order to facilitate the production of final reports, we would request that all such feedback be provided to us by June 1, 2001. The Steering Committee meeting handout, Summary of Recommendations, was developed so that it could be used to provide a summary of the study for consideration by local governing bodies (please note that, based on Steering Committee input, there will be several changes to this document). If you would like additional copies of this document for your jurisdiction, or would like for a member of the study team to present .the study recommendations to your jurisdiction, please let me know. 3 Once again, thank you for your participation in this important study. Final project documentation will be prepared over the next few months. As always, should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at 703-352-7193. Sincerely, Joseph Springer Project Manager Attachment PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP 4 US Route 29 Corridor Development Study -- Combined Phases II and llI State Project No. 6029-963-F01, PE 100 Steering Committee Meeting - March 30, 2001 MEETING SUMMARY The seventh Steering Committee meeting was held at VDOT's Lynchburg District Office at 10:00 a.m, on March 30, 2001. .am attendance list and an agenda are attached. Following is a summary of the proceedings. Roy Byrd opened the meeting by welcoming everyone. Bill Guiher then had everyone introduce themselves and then turned the meeting over to Joe Springer. The following handouts were distributed: · Agenda · Summary of Input - January 2001 Public Meetings · Summary of Proposed Changes to Study Recommendations · Summary 0f Recommendations, with I 1" x 17" corridor map graphically depicting the locations of recommended improvements Springer summarized the purpose of the meeting, which was to review input received from citizens at the fourth and final set of public meetings held in January 2001. Presented at the public meetings were displays and other information depicting the draft study recommendations for proposed multi-modal transportation improvements in the Route 29 corridor. Input received from the more than 400 people who attended the meetings was used to revise and refine the proposed recommendations. Springer then summarized the changes that had been made to the recommendations. They included shifts of proposed interchange and access locations, a change from freeway to parkway concept in northern Amherst County, additional park and ride lots, addition of a rail stop in Nelson County on the TransDominion Rail Service, and a recommendation to conduct localized circulation studies for Lovingston and Covesville. Springer asked the group if any additional changes are desired. Fred Boger of Nelson County suggested an additional park-and ride lot in southern Nelson County. Having discussed the changes to the draft recommendations, Springer suggested that the group could read on their own those that were unchanged, rather than take the group's time to go through all the recommendations. Springer then summarized the next steps, which include the following: · Local government action on the Corridor Transportation Plan · Publication of final report · Action by Commonwealth Transportation Board · Incorporation of Corridor Transportation Plan into local and cross-jurisdictional planning initiatives · Identification ofpro_~ects and funding, location and environmental s~udies, design, and construction Q :L29CO RR~STEE RCOM'uM TG7M FN. DOC Springer suggested that it would be desirable to obtain a resolution from each local jurisdiction stating a position on the Proposed improvements, whether they agreed with all or any of them, or not. Springer noted that the City of Danville had passed a resolution last year and asked if the CitY would want that included as their position on the project. Kent Shelton responded that he believed the City would. Wayne Cilimberg of Albemarle County asked about a time frame for passing the resolutions. Bill Guiher indicated that responses would be desired by June 1. Cilimberg also added that, given the probable long time horizon for implementing the major proposed improvements, the recommendations should incorporate suggestions for short-term actions that VDOT or the localities could take to promote achievement of the major purposes of the proposed improvements. For example, he stressed access management initiatives that localities could pursue to forestall the need for major road improvements farther into the future. Sally Thomas, also of Albemarle County, added that she did not feel that the roadway recommendations for Albemarle County truly reflected the desires of Albemarle officials. Springer noted that the localities are certainly flee to indicate in their resolutions nonsupport for recommendations they disagree with. 'The resolutions will become part of the final report. Future advancement of any of the recommendations will depend to a great extent on initiatives by the localities through VDOT's annual funding allocation process to have individual projects programmed for specific locations. Springer added that he hoped the localities would be able to incorporate the final Corridor Transportation Plan into local and cross-jurisdictional planning initiatives to help prevent proliferation of roadside development that would both hinder the mobility function of Route 29 and increase the potential displacement impacts of any future construction. Springer asked Roy Byrd if the Commonwealth Transportation Board would like to have another presentation on the recommendations. Mr. Byrd responded affirmatively and suggested that efforts be initiated to begin identifying and prioritizing projects for future programming. There being no further questions or comments, the meeting was adjourned. 2 US Route 29 Corridor Development Study US Route 29 Corridor Development Study- Combined Phases IFIII Steering Committee Meeting- March 30, 2001 AGENDA 1. Introductions 2. Review of January Public Meetings 3. Presentation and Discussion of the Route 29 Corridor Transportation Plan Next Steps for Improvements to the Route 29 Corridor Local government action on the Corridor Transportation Plan Publication of final report Action by Commonwealth Transportation Board Incorporation of Corridor Transportation Plan into local and cross- jurisdictional planning initiatives - Identification of projects and funding, location and environmental studies, design, and construction US Route 29 Corridor Development Study US Route 29 Corridor Development Study -- Combined Phases II/m Steering Committee Meeting March 30, 2001 10:00 am ATTENDANCE NAME ORGANIZATION TELEPHONE # Don Austin VDOT - Appomattox 804-352-7135 Chris Capehart Delegate Kathy Byron (22nd District) 804-582-1592 Robert Jordan www.i-83ext.freehomepage.com 804-237-8097 Beth Kent LBG Regional Chamber of Commerce 804-845-5966 Wayne Cilimberg Albemarle County 804-296-5823 Sally Thomas Albemarle County 804-295-1819 Mike Davidson Campbell County 804-332-9676 William N. Mays Lynchburg Regional Chamber of Commerce 804-845-1266 Roy Byrd Commonwealth Transportation Board' 804-324-8223 Judy Keesee Pittsylvania County Chamber 804-432-1650 Randy Hamilton VDOT Chatham 804-432-7219 JeffKessler VDOT - LynChburg District 804-856-8293 Kent Shelton City of Danville 804-799-5245 Fred Boger Nelson County 804-263-4673 Stuart Tyler Parsons Transportation Group 703-352-7194 Joe Springer Parsons TransPortation Group 703-352-7193 Bill Guiher VDOT ' 804-786-9483 Gerry Harter City of Lynchburg 804-847-1360 4 US Route 29 Corridor Development Study U.S. Route 29 Corridor Development Study -- Combined Phases II and III Summary of Recommendations March 30, 2001 Study Recommendations The general recommendation of this study is that Route 29 be developed as an Interstate-type freeway from North Carolina to the northern boundary of Amherst County and as a parkway-type facility in Nelson and Albemarle Counties. Over its entire length, Route 29 Would be improved to meet, at a minimum, rural- principal arterial standards for safety. Rail, transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and traveler information improvements are also recommended. All of the study recommendations were developed in accordance with guidelines developed in coordination with the study's Steering Committee. These guidelines are (order does not indicate priority): Achieve and maintain uninterrupted traffic flow on Route 29 Be proactive, rather than reactive, in implementing transportation improvements in the corridor Maintain an acceptable level of traffic service Meet rural principal arterial design standards to ensure safety Preserve the natural and scenic assets of the corridor Promote and enhance the use of,'and interconnections with, other modeS of transportation Location-Specific Transportation Recommendations Depending on location, Route 29 itself is recommended to be developed to one of three specific types of roadway. These are: (1) freeway, (2) parkway with grade-separated interchanges, and (3) parkway with at-grade intersections. The details of each of these roadway types are described below: Freeway: Roadway would be constructed or upgraded to meet freeway standards that are compatible with Interstate System standards. This type of roadway would include: Four, 12-foot lanes (two lanes in each direction) Paved, 10-foot outside shoulder (on the right of the travel lanes) Paved, 4-foot inside shoulder (on the left of the travel lanes) Sufficient service roads to ensure that properties will retain access to the public road system All direct access to the Route 29 freeway would be via grade-separated interchanges Parkway with Grade-Separated Interchanges: ROadway would be upgraded to meet current rural principal arterial standards with a lower design speed than for the freeway. Emphasis in design would be on visual quality both of and from the parkway. This type of roadway would include: c~ Four, 12-foot lanes (two lanes in each direction) 9 Paved~ 8-foot bicycle lane/shoulder on each side separated from the vehicle travel lanes by a rmnble strip 4-foot graded inside shoulder (on the left of the travel lanes) Sufficient service roads to ensure that properties wilt retain access to the public road system All direct access to the grade-separated parkway would be via grade-separated interchanges Parkway with At-Grade Intersections: Roadway woUld be upgraded to meet current rural principal arterial standards with a lower design speed than for the freeway. Emphasis in design would be on visual quality both of and from the parkway. This type of roadway would include: [] Four, 12-foot lanes (two lanes in each direction) [] Paved, 8-foot bicycle lane/shoulder on each side separated from' the vehicle travel lanes by a rumble strip [] 4-foot graded inside shoulder (on the left of the travel lanes) [] All direct access to the Route 29 freeway would occur at a limited number of intersecting primary or secondary roads [] Access control measures would include the following: · New direct access points onto or off of Route 29 would be severely limited. Access to roadside properties, as they are improved, would be via service roads or new connections to the secondary road system. · Median breaks would be closed except for the limited number of identified access points. · As property use changes for individual parcels, property access would be shifted from direct access onto and off of Route 29 to indirect access using service roads and/or new connections to the secondary Each of the facility types is intended to reducethe number of access points onto Route 29 to increase travel safety and provide a means to control and/or direct growth. The following table summarizes the recommended number of access points by jurisdiction: Total Number of Access Points 1'997 2020 Study Recommendation Jurisdiction Total Total Interchanges[ Intersections Pittsylvania County 393 20 20 . 0 Campbell County 351 5 5 0 Amherst County 81. . 5 ' 5 0 Nelson County 302 15 4 11 Albemarle County .233 9 1 (1-64) 8 Note: For 2020, the number of access points are for mainline Route 29 only (for those sections south of Lynchburg where Route 29 would be on new alignment, acCess points onexisting Route 29 are not shoWn). In Campbell County, the number shoWn is for the section from the Pittsylvania County line to Route 24~ Location-specific recommendations are shown on the following pages and on the attached map. l0 Route 29 Corridor Development Study-- Combined Phases II/111 Summary of Location-Specific Recommendations Key Corridor Section I (miles) [1] Improvement Type Access Points and Type 1 North Carolina Line to ' 15.8 Freeway on existing Route 29 Business Existing interchan~le [2] Route 726 North of alignment (for existing Elizabeth Street New interchange Blairs two-lane sections, ~oute 86 Existing interchange [2] widen to 4 lanes) Goodyear Boulevard Existing interchange [2] Riverpark Drive Existing interchange [2] Route 58 Existing interchange [2] Route 41 New interchange Route 726/Route 29 Business Existing interchange [2] 2 Route 726 to Route 29 7.6 Freeway on new alignment Route 863 New interchange Business South of Route 703/Route 29 Business New interchange south of Chatham existing Route 29 Business 3 Route 29 Business South 3.6 'Freeway on existing Route 832 Existing interchange [2] of Chatham to Route 29 alignment (upgrade Route 685 Existing nterchange [2] Business North of Chatham Chatham Bypass/ Route 29 Business North (Chatham) Existing interchange 4'Route 29 Business North 5.9 Freeway on new alignment Route 649 New interchange of Chatham to Route 29 Route 29 Business South (Gretna) Existing interchange [2] Business South of Gretna 5 Route 29 Business South 4.3 Freeway on existing Route 40 of Gretna to ROute 29 IExisting interchange [2] alignment (upgrade Route 29 Business North (Gretna) Existing interchange [2] Business North of 'Gretna Gretna Bypass) 6 Route 29 Business North 7.3 Freewayon existing Route 756 New interch'ange of Gretna to Route 29 . alignment ' Route 29 Business South (Hurt) Exist ng interchange [2] Business South of Hurt Route 29 Corridor Development Study -- Combined Phases II/Ill Summary of Location-Specific Recommendations Corridor Section ~29 Business South 3f Hurt to Route 29 Jsiness North of Altavista Route 29 Business North of Altavista to Route 24 Route 24 to Route 29 Business South of Amherst Route 29 Business South of Amherst to Route 29 .iness North of Amherst 29 North of.Amherst Tye-River to Route 653 (Nelson County) (Nelson County) to Nelson/Albemarle County Line miles) [1] ,rovement T 7.4 Freeway on existing alignment (upgrade 9.2 25.3 3.1 6.1 5.7 16.0 Freeway on new alignment Route 924 Access Points and Jte 43 Route 714 29 Business North 696 ;Umes limited access roadway will be built as part of separately planned regional Freeway on existing alignment (upgrade Route 29 Bus/Madison lute 60 Route'29Business North' ute 1.51 ;me Parkway with grade- interchan Parkway with grade-. separated interchanges / with at-grade intersections 610 739 ~te 665 North 56/655 Route 653 Route 651 Route 29 Business South New New inte~ New interchan interchan New interchan, ,ute 29 Business North 624~838 3tersection rade intersection intE Route 613 Extended Jte 6 West/786 617 Jte 790 Route 6 East/616 le intersection intersection At-grade intersection Route 29 Corridor Development Study -- Corn bined Phases II/111 Summary of Location-SpeCific Recommendations MapI Key I Corridor Section 141 Nelson/Albemarle County ine to Interstate 64 Length (miles) [1] 16.4 Notes: Improvement Type Route 632 Route 838/841 Route 633 :~oute 692 Route 710 Route 708 'Route 745 "~outh of Route 1106 Interstate 64 Access Points'am Type At-grade intersection At-grade intersection At-~Irade intersection At-grade intersection At-grade intersection At%qrade intersection At-grade intersection At-grade intersection ~ing interc.han, e 2] = [1] -- Length shown in between endpoints on existing Route 29; the lengths of roadway recommendations on new alignment will vary from these values. [2] -- Exising interchanges would be upgraded to meet appropriate standards an d/or to accommodate projected travel demands. [3] -- The location and type of connection to Route 24 is dependent on a final alignment for the South Lynchburg Bypass. [4] -- This interchange will be constructed as part of the Madison Heights Bypass. Route 29 Corridor Development Study -- Combined Phases II/Ill Summary of Location-Specific Recommendations Map J . J Description of Improvement Key Location of Improvement ~ ~ Railroad grade separation _ ' 16 -~oute 5-'~east of Route 29 (Nelson County) . Railroad grade separation 1"---'~ Norfolk Southern track between Elma and Faber Straighten track . (Nelson County) 1-"---~ ~.ynchburg Enhar~ce intermodal connectivity by r~oving train station to Lynchburg Airport 19 Oak Ridge (Nelson County) Provide passenger train service (proposed TransDominion) to Nelson County at the historic Oak Ridge train station. Renovate and upgrade this facility accordingly. ~ Blairs (Pittsylvania County) Construct' park-and-ride lot 20 Yellow Branch (Campbell County) Construct park-and-ride lot 20 Amherst (Amherst County._~.) ~onstruct park-and-ride lot = ~, Lovingston (Nelson County) Construct park-and-ride lot ~ South of Covesville (Albemarle County). Construct park-and-ride lot 2'"--'-~Route 2~at'Route1001 L='-'"-ovingston (Nelso~ Cor~struct pedest~ian/bi(~ycle overpass. Provide sidewalk or pedestrian trail County). connections to the retail areas west of across from Route 29 Business South. 22. City of Danville -- Construct Virginia Welcome Center 23 Route 739 (Nelson County) Construct Wayside that will complement the Virginia Blue Ridge Railroad Trail being developed by others along the abandoned railroad bed along the Tye River. 24 Lovingston (Nelson County) Perform circulation study to enhance local vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access at an appropriate village scale; minimize the impacts of ROute 29 access changes; and maximize community cohesion. 2-'-'-'-~ Covesville (Albemarle County) Perform circulation study to enhance local vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access at an appropriate village scale; 'minimize the impacts of Route 29 access changes; and maximize community cohesion. . Non Location-Specific or Corridor-Wide Transportation Recommendations VDOT and VDRPT should encourage local governments to provide zoning for industrial uses on land that is served by rail and encourage businesses to ship raw materials and finished goods by rail through such measures as subsidies for constructing rail sidings. [] Provide subsidy to AMTRAK to provide for one additional passenger train per day from Danville to Washington, DC on the current AMTRAK system. ca To provide meaningful alternatives to travel in.single occupant vehicles in the corridor, this study recommends that continual attention be paid to increasing the route-mileage of existing fixed-route and paratransit services in Danville, Lynchburg, and Charlottesville. Within the study corridor, the most viable service to the Charlottesville area (based on the low densities in southern Albemarle and Nelson Counties) would be a paratransit type of service. Within the Lynchburg region, opportunities exist to increase transit service to major new retail areas both south and west of the City. The potential for providing transit service to new employment opportunities north of Danville should also be considered. Encourage ride-share in the Route 29 Corridor by continuing to support ride matching services in the corridor, adding commuter van service from Amherst and Route 24 (Campbell County) to Lynchburg, adding commuter van service from Blairs to Danville, and constructing the park-and-ride facilities listed under location-specific improvements. Pedestrian travel is best suited to trips of short distance and time and those that have the most flexibility in terms of when they can be made. Pedestrian improvements are, therefore, most cost-effective in areas of relatively high densities of housing, retail, and, to a lesser degree, employment. VDOT and local governments should continually identify locations within the urbanized areas of Lynchburg and Danville where pedestrian access can be safely accommodated and encouraged through the construction of sidewalks. Within these urbanized areas, the roadway environment should be developed With pedestrian (and bicycle) amenities to support and encourage travel by these modes. Provide comprehensive signing for traveler services, historic attractions, and other locations of traveler interest throughout the corridor. Provide cost-effective traveler information and warning systems through the use of innovative transportation technologies (Intelligent Transportation Systems, or ITS). Such applications should include speed control and notification systems at isolated rural intersections, pedestrian and bicycle warning signage activated only when pedestrians and bicyclists are present, Internet-based ride-share matCh systems and transit information, and truck pre-clearance systems that include weigh-in-motion and electronic credential checking Benefits, Costs, and Impacts of the Study Recommendation As with any transportation improvement, the benefits of the study recommendation need to be weighed against its costs and impacts. Estimates of these benefits, costs, and impacts were developed at a planning level for this study, and are shown in the table on page 13. It is important to note that the implementation of any part of the study recommendation will require detailed planning, engineering, and environmental analyses that will include ongoing public participation efforts. The planning level estimates developed for this study are valuable, 7 however, for use in identifying potential project issues prior to more detailed analysis and for identifying general levels of required funding for project implementation. Future Activities for Improving Transportation In the RoUte 29 Corridor This study will serve as a comprehensive long-range transportation plan for the Route 29 Corridor. This plan should provide a guide to state and local governments in activities such as: Planning land uses to take advantage of the mobility afforded by Route 29 Directing land uses to activity nodes where access to Route 29 would be concentrated [] Planning transportation improvement priorities [] Targeting funding for transportation improvements Continuing to identify and support opportunities for interm0dal connectivity Requesting follow-on location studies for transportation improvements in this corridor Once it has been decided to carry a project forward, the project would undergo a detailed location study where a number of different alignments Or options Would be considered and analyzed in detail. The location study would incorporate necessary environmental documentation and would include public meetings and heatings to SOlicit input on the various alternatives under consideration. As all transportation projects compete for a limited pool of transportation funds, any project would also need to have identified funding in order to be ~studied further, designed, and constructed. Route 29 Corridor Devej~l~'med{ ~iU~'~(~;bi~ed Phases II and III Summary of Benefits, Costs, and Impacts of Study Recommendation I ALTERNATIVE PARAMETER No-Build I Recommended Traffic and Transportation Meets current design standards No Yes . Number of at-grade intersections 74 19 Interchanges 18 35 Number of locations with level of service D or worse 14 1 Average travel time in minutes (Blairs to Yellow BranchI 61.66 44.52 Average travel time in minutes(Amherst to 1-64) 68.25 ' 64.05 Volume change from No-BuJld - Blairs to Yellow Branch (% change in traffic) N/A -2% Volume change from No-Build - Amherst to 1-64 (% change in traffic) N/A -2% Safety {rank: 1=best, 5 --worst) 5 2 Enhances transportation choices No Yes Economics and Land Use Compatible with local growth and development objectives Pittsylvania County i No Yes Campbell County No Yes Amherst County No · Yes Nelson County Yes Yes Albemarle County Yes No Compatible with land use pans Pittsylvania County No Yes Campbell County No Yes Amherst County No Yes Nelson County Yes Yes Albemarle County Yes No Compatible w th promotion of tourism (rank: 1=best, 5=least) 3 1 Potential employment added in year 2020 - 844 Potential value added in year 2020 ($millions) - $40.0 Net fiscal benefits (tax revenues, net present value, 20 yrs, Smillions) $3.8 Right of way cost (Sm ons) $0 $110 Construct on cost ($mill ons) $5 $442 Total cost ($millions) $5 $552 Environmental Farm and (acres converted to transportation use) 0 ~ . 227 . ForesUand (acres displaced) 0 254 Potential involvement with Agricultural and Forestal Districts (# of districts) 0 2 Wetland (acres displaced) 0 16 Streams (# of stream crossingS) 115 115 Floodplains (# of floodplain crossings) 37 37 Endangered species (# of recorded occurrences) 0 0 Parks and recreation areas (Ct of encroachments). 0 0 - Recorded cultural resources (Ct of potent a encroachments) * 0 3 Noise (distance from road to 66 dBA, in feet) 150 - 200 150 - 260 Home displacements 0 195 Bus ness displacements 0 98 Scenic views (rank: 1=best, 5=least) 4 2 * Note: "Recorded cultural resources" refers to properties already included in the records of the Virginia Department of Historic Resources that are known to be on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. There may be other properties along the corridor that may be eligible; however, detailed identification surveys 17 Route 29 Corridor Development Study - Combined Phases II/III Summary of Input - January 2001 Public Meetings March 22, 2001 The fourth and final set of public meetings for the Route 29 Corridor Development Study was held in January 2001 to present and receive comment on the draft study recommendation. Workshop sign-in sheets indicate that a total of 426 persons attended the five workshops. Workshop locations are listed below with respective attendance figures in parentheses: · Tye River Elementary School -- Nelson County -- January 17, 2001 (142) · Red Hill Elementary School -- Albemarle County -- January 18, 2001 (108) · Campbell County Vocational Technical Center -- Campbell County - January 23, 2001 (69) · Amherst County High 'School -- Amherst County -- January 24, 2001 (49) · Pittsylvania County Vocational Technical Center -- Pittsylvania County - .January 25, 2001 (58) Workshop displays illustrated the study recommendation and a no-build scenario (depicting conditions .if the recommendation were not implemented). These displays consisted of charts and maps describing the recommendation and highlighting the potential benefits and impacts of the recommendation (at a planning level). Details of the roadway recommendations we. re shown on 1"=500' scale aerial photographs mounted on display boards as well as in bound booklets on meeting room tables. Meeting participants were invited to mark these booklets with their comments in addition to both oral and written comments. A meeting handout was provided that described the study recommendation, along with associated benefits and impacts. Participants were also provided with postage-paid questionnaire/comment forms. Feedback to the information presented at the meeting was provided to the study team via four methods: · Completed questionnaire/comment forms and materials attached to these forms; · Comments written directly on the aerial photography booklets and display maps; · Letters and e-mails directed to the study team; and · Local government actions. This document summarizes the feedback received from each of these sources. Part A: Questionnaire/Comment Form Responses The questionnaire/comment form was filled out by a total of 115 people. Eighty people filled out their surveys and handed them in at the public meetings; an additional 35 returned the survey by mail. In addition to the survey, 10 letters were received from individuals about the study. These letters typically detailed concerns that residents had with the project. The questions on the questionnaire/comment form were free response questions Where participants where asked to write out their answer to questions, as opposed to multiple- choice questions where a participant simply circles a choice. A summary of the responses is included below: Question 1: Do you think the study recommendations as presented at this meeting will meet the transportation needs in the Route 29 corridor? An equal number of responses to this question were either a direct yes or a direct no (45 of each). Eighteen responses were a mix of yes and no, supporting only some part of the study recommendation. Seven of the questionnaires included no response written for this question. Of the 80 responses that were filled out and returned at the meeting itself, there were generally more "yes" responses from participants of the workshops in Nelson, Amherst, Campbell and Pittsylvania c. ounties, and more "no" responses from the workshop in Albemarle County. Question 2: If not, what other improvements would you recommend? The responses to this question were wide-ranging. The categories of comments that received more than four responses from participants were: · Make improvements to freight and passenger rail service - 13 responses · Improve the Route 15 corridor as a way to take traffic off Route 29- 7 responses · Make Route 29 a parkway from Route 151 north to the Amherst/Nelson line - 5 responses Question 3: Please list the reasons supporting your comments in questions 1 and 2. As with Question 2, the responses to this question were varied. Most of the responses to the question reflected the respondent's answer to Question 1. Those in favor of making highway improvements to Route 29 mentioned the improved safety, economic development, and congestion relief, that such improvements might bring. For those not in favor of action on the road, comments included fears that improvements will bring more truck traffic to the road, disrupt local communities by restricting access, and disturb the rural characteristics of the road. Question 4: Do you live in a residence or run a business with access directly onto Route 29? Most of the respondents (81, or 70 percent) did not live or operate a business with direct access onto Route 29. Twenty-eight (24 percent) of the respondents lived or operated a business with direct access. Six questionnaires did not include a response to this question. 19 Question 5A: Do you support restrictions by VDOT or local government on construction of new driveways or business entrances directly onto Route29? More than three-quarters of respondents (88) supported restrictions on new access to Route 29. Five respondents were either ambivalent about these restrictions, while 9 did not support, restrictions. Thirteen questionnaires did not include a response to this question. Question 5B: If not, what other methods would you recommend to reduce future development of new entrances onto Route 29? Thirty-one of the 115 questionnaires included a response to this question. Responses that were received on more than one questionnaire are shown below (along with the number of times the response was received): · Build access roads -- 9 · Local zoning -- 6 · Keep existing driveways -- 2 · Do not build access roads -- 2 Other responses to the question were: · Add landscaping · Reduce speed limit · Establish a date after which loss of property will not be reimbursed · Improve Route 15 · Put in more crossovers · Some restrictions on driveways are good, but not.as radical as those in the the study recommendation · The parkway concept is good · Make sure there are no traffic lights · Stop both development and new driveways · The study needs to have more knowledge of local needs and projected growth · Some areas do not lend themselves to access roads · Colleen needs a bypass · Lynchburg needs a full bypass · A full freeway will take care of the access issue Question 5C: If so, what mechanism do you believe would best accomplish such restrictions? (e.g., zoning by locality, denial of entrance by VDOT, purchase of access rights, other methods) Seventy-one survey participants responded to this question. Of these, 18 indicated that they support all three of the mechanisms suggested in the question for restriction of access. Approximately an equal number of people indicated that they would support a combination of these mechanisms, but not all of them. Total responses for each mechanism are as follows (due to multiple responses, these add up to more than 71): · VDOT denial of entrance -- 43 · Purchase of access rights -- 36 · Local zoning -- 41 · Build access/service roads -- 5 Other responses (each cited once) to this question include: · Businesses need easy access to cars · The road should be a limited access parkway with its own set of access guidelines · The project does not comply with the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan Question 6: Given the current availability of funding for transportation improvements in general, and the long-term planning horizon of this study, what priority would you assign to transportation improvements, either by type or location, within the corridor. Responses to this question were quite varied, with some participants assigning a priority, while others made comments about various improvements. Thirty-eight responses provided information on how the respondent would prioritize Route 29 corridor improvements: · High priority -- 10 · Medium priority--5 · Low Priority -- 25 Part B: Comments on Meeting Aerials Meeting participants were invited to provide comments on 1"=500' aerial photographs depicting the roadway component of the study recommendation. At each meeting, five sets of aerials were provided at tables to allow participants to provide written comments right on the aerials. The majority of comments related to correcting road name and landmark labels on the aerial photographs. Many other comments echoed ones that were provided in writing and described above. Comments related to study recommendations are summarized below: · Concern about how students would bicycle to school and cross Route 29 safely (Nelson County). · Service road passes through Nelson County Middle School parking lot (Nelson County). Land between the Pine Hill Church and Route 29 is too steep to allow for any widening of Route 29 without destroying church access (Nelson County). · Service roads will effectively destroy the community of Colleen. Perhaps Route 29 could be depressed with service roads at the existing grade (Nelson County). · The pedestrian bridge at Lovingston does not appear to be bicycle-friendly (Nelson County). · Route 616 connects to Route 6 West via Route 634, while Route 790 only goes a short way and ends. Route 616 needs access more than Route 790 does (Nelson County). 2O Access to Route 632 is not necessary because of its proximity to Route 6 (Albemarle County). Access to Route 632 is necessary because of Little League ball fields (Albemarle County). The Cove Presbyterian Church is on the National Register. It needs access to Route 29. Its functional property (septic field) adjoins Route 29 (Albemarle County). The community along Route 890 and behind the Norfolk Southern Railway needs access to Route 29 (Albemarle County). Route 841 needs access due to location of U.S. Post Office (Albemarle County). Do not remove crossovers in Covesville area (Albemarle County). Covesville Store is working to be placed on the National Register (Albemarle County). The land on the west side of Route 29 and south of Route 697 is 'too steep to' allow for a service road (Albemarle County). The very wide median on Route 29 just north of Route 692 could be used to provide for service roads rather than taking property on either side of Route 29 (Albemarle County). The intersection at Route 710 (designated an access point on the aerial) has sight distance problems due to crest in the road (Albemarle County). Part C: Letter and E-Mail Responses The nine letters and/or position sheets received in reference to the project covered the following areas: · Concern for walking, bicycling, and community cohesion · Concern for impacts of property takings for'the improvements · Concern for wildlife impacts from the improvements · Recommendation is not comprehensive enough and is not a "complete" solution · Concern about potential traffic lights on Route 29 The individual correspondences are summarized below: 1) Any improvements should allow students to be able to walk or bicycle to schOol. The corridor should be linked by bus service and additional train service. All transit stops need to be accessible via bicycles, and trains and buses need to have bicycle racks. The train station in Lynchburg should not be removed from the city center. 2) Bicyclists should be allowed on the entire route, whatever changes are made. A limited access road presents problems for bicyclists. Additional access points should be provided for bicyclists on these routes: Rumble strips provide problems for bicyclists in that they cause a build-up of debris immediately to the right'of the strip. The pedestrian overpass in Lovingston needs to be handicapped- and bicycle-accessible. Trains need to have accomodations for bicycles. At public hearings, present information about adjoining counties as well as the county where the hearing is being held. All presentation maps at public heatings need to have both names and route numbers. 3) The plan will take houses, cause more accidents, not allow buses a chance to cross the road. The plan is bad; the road should not be wider. 4) Bike lanes should exist along the entire length of the corridor. Entire corridor should be linked by transit options. All transit should be bike-accessible. Rumble strips are hazardous for cyclists - care needs to be given to. the needs of cyclists where they are installed (perhaps they should be painted a bright color). The train station in Lynchburg should not be removed from the city center. 5) The plans for the highway would cut right through farmland, not allowing it to be farmed as in the past. The study recommendation would also negatively affect wildlife. 6) The need for a new highway for the 5.9 miles between Chatham and Gretna is limited, particularly considering the high level of impacts. This recommendation would potentially affect family lands. 7) A planned service road near Routes 708 and 745 would take family property. 8) The plan does too much"patcnmg" up" in the corridor. It would be better to look at transit options, or a new highway on a new alignment. As soon as you build a bypass, you have new congested spots develop. Money should be spent on a more permanent solution. 9) Traffic lights should not be put on Route 29. Traffic lights cause air pollution, create safety hazards, cause noise pollution, cause light pollution, and cause groundwater pollution. The water supply in the area is fragile - traffic lights would have a negative impact on it. 10) The plans for the road will impact the Cove Presbyterian Church. The church uses a piece of land between itself and Route 29 for a septic tank drain field --- the health department has stated that the church cannot operate without the septic tank. Services have been going on at the church for 192 years. Church has a cemetery where a number of prominent people are buried. Project in general will negatively affect church. Church is located at 5501 Covesville Lane. Part D: Local Government Actions To date, formal action on the study has been taken by two local governments in the study corridor. The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution on February 14, 2001. Th elements of the resolution are summarized below: The Route 29 South Corridor in Albemarle County is not planned for development. Therefore, the County does not believe the control of access proposed in the study recommendation is necessary. Planning that balances land use and transportation with more appropriate access management measures are supported by the County. 22 · The County believes that the cost for the improvement is not justified by the traffi.c or safety benefits. · The County supports a parkway concept without service roads. The County vehemently opposes a freeway concept (the recommended concept does not include freeway in Albemarle County). The County does not believe that reservation of right- of-way at designated access points is necessary. · The County supports the rail recommendations, including double-tracking the rail line, implementation of the TransDominion Rail Service and an additional AMTRAK train per day. · The County recommends a park-and-fide facility be constructed at Route 29 and Route 6 East (in Nelson County). · Transit, pedestrian, rideshare, and technology (through Internet match systems) all need to coordinated to ensure success. The Nelson County Board of Supervisors endorsed the study recommendations on March 20, 2001. A copy of the resolution~has not yet been received. U.S. Route 29 Corridor Development Study -- Combined Phases II and III Summary of Proposed Changes to Study Recommendations March 30, 2001 Shift Route 703 access point in Pittsylvania County to a point midway between Route 703 and Route 29 Business South (Chatham). Change recommendation in northern Amherst County from freeway concept to parkway with grade-separated interchanges. Add Oak Ridge railroad station stop in Nelson County for TransDominion Rail Service. Shift proposed access point in Nelson County from Route 718 to Route 641. Add additional access point in Nelson County at Route 613 Extended (just south of Woods Mill). Add park-and-ride lot in southern Albemarle County. Add additional access point in Albemarle County for Covesville at Route 841. Perform localized circulation studies for Lovingston and Covesville to enhance local bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicular access at an appropriate village scale; minimize the impacts of Route 29 access changes; and maximize community cohesion. Route 29 Corridor Development Study (Combined Phases II/111) Final Study Recommendation Ride and BOARD -TO -BOARD May 2, 2001 -9:30 a.m. ~4 Monthly Communications Report of activities from the ~41bemarle County School Board to the ~41bemarle County Board of Supervisors. Highlights: School. Board Briefs (Attachment 1) - April 12 and 26, 2001 RECENT FY 2001-2002 BUDGET: At its April 26 meeting, the Board passed an operating budget for the FY 2001-2002 School Year. The Board would like to thank you for your support on this very difficult budget year. We understand that $1.5M one-time fimds were used in this budget, however, we believe that much of this will be used for expenses such as the purchase of buses and textbooks, which represent approximately $1.5 million of the adopted budget. BAKER-BUTLER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UPDATE: At its April 12 meeting, the Board received an update on the bids for construction for Baker- Butler Elementary. Bids were received and the project came in $1.2 million over budget. On April 23, the Board received an update from A1 Reaser, Director of Building Services, on the next steps to address this issue. At that time, it was determined that bids for the construction of the school would be re-solicited. Bids will be "on the street" for two weeks, opening the second week in May. This process will not impact the construction schedule because the preparation work for the site was bid separately and is under way. SCHOOL DIVISION CALENDAR: At its April 12 meeting, the Board approved the 2001-2002 School Division Calendar. The Calendar includes 180 instructional days, 9 weather make-up days (Memorial Day not included as a make-up day), 8 School Planning Days, 3 early release days, 2 days for central staff development, a Thanksgiving Break from November 21 -23, Martin Luther King Holiday, a Winter Holiday from December 22 - January 3, and the last day of school as June 7. The first day of the 2001-02 school year will be Monday, August 27. During the coming year, we will study and consider the idea of scheduling Spring Break during a consistent week each year, such as the first full week of April, to facilitate planning of family activities. AIMR RENTAL CONTRACT: The Board approved a rental agreement with to rent Monticello High School and a food services contract with the Association of Investment Management and Research (AIMR). The contract is for approximately 33 days beginning in mid-June 2001. We project $300,000 in income from this rental, which has been incorporated into the Board's revenue stream for the FY 2001-02. UPDATE ON REDISTRICTING FOR BAKER-BUTLER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: The Board received the recommendations for the Baker-Butler redistricting at its April 12 meeting. At that time, the Board decided to hold a work session on May 9 at the Transportation Department and a public hearing on May 16 at Sutherland Middle School. The Board hopes to make a final decision at its May 24 meeting. NEW DEPUTY CLERK: Tiffany Seay is the new Deputy Clerk for the School Board. Ms. Seay is replacing Mrs. Johnston, who is now the School Board Clerk. PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENTS: On April 26th, the Superintendent announced the following new assignments for our Principals: Keith Hammon from Woodbrook Elementary to Baker-Butler Elementary; Debbie Collins from Red Hill to Yancey; Mack Tate from Yancey to Red Hill Elementary School; Jim Jones to Principal of Scottsville Elementary School. Other assignments are listed on the enclOsed attachment (Attachment 2). FUTURE ITEMS OF INTEREST IMPROVING THE BUDGET PROCESS FOR NEXT YEAR: Now that we have a few months before starting our next intense budget cycle, the School Board would like to work with you to review the budget cycle timelines, especially in the December- April timeframe. We would like to spread out the January to early February crush so we can have more time to obtain feedback for our Request for Funds document. A prime example of the need for more time was our Request was provided in early February and we did not officially present it to you until late March. We understand that Mr. Tucker also needs to work on this request, but we would hope there could be some streamlining to help provide additional time at this phase of the budget process. The Albemarle County School 'Board Briefs Board Kevin Castner, Superintendent Charles Ward, Chairman of the School Board Regular BoardMeefing '-Thursday, April 12, 2001 A~Udit°riuln and Room 241, County Office Building' 401 Mclntire Road * Charlottesville, VA 22902 htio://kl 2.albemarle. Or~ -:?~ CLOSED MEETING The Board approved the following actions: .... Granting the attendance appeal of a high school student. .... Denying the grievance of an employee. .... Accepting the resignation of three employees PRESENTATIONS .... The Board presented a commendation to Rachel Singel, a Sutherland Middle School student, for her oil pastel that was used to advertise the Albemarle County Fine Arts Festival. .... The Board presented members of the Walton Middle School Spirit Team with commendations for their 1st place finish in Spirit Unlimited Competition on January 13. .... The Board presented the Sutherland Middle School MathCounts Team with commendations for their second place finish in the Skyline Chapter Regional MathCounts Competition on February 17, 2001. .... The Board presented Michael Scholl, a sixth grade student from Jack Jouett Middle School, with a commendation for receiving top honors at the MathCounts Competition by placing in the top 10 individual scores and represented the region in the State Competition. .... The Board presented Kevin Jackson Baber, Evan Skeen, Wyatt Mahanes, Sarah Clugston and Michael Roper for placing in the top three places for the 7th Annual 24 Challenge held on March 2~d. .... The Board presented the Western Albemarle Jazz Band with a commendation for receiving Best In Class trophy at the James Madison University Tri-State Jazz Festival on March 17th. Bass player Evan Younger was named to the All Star Band and received the Outstanding Rhythm Section trophy. .... The Board recognized with a commendation two Henley Middle School teachers, Mary Beth Merschel Kooken and Patricia Harder, for being certified by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards on November 30, 2000. .... Albemarle County Public Schools received a citation of excellence from expansion Management Magazine as a Gold Medal School. ANNOUNCEMENTS The following announcements were given: .... The Division was concerned with the images of successful students portrayed by some of the pictures that are in the State's Standards of Learning booklet. The Equity and Diversity Committee reviewed the booklet and suggested that it be sent to parents along with the School Performance Report Cards, school profiles and Progress Report tri-fold, with a cover letter, expressing the concerns of the Division. The Committee also recommended that the Superintendent send a letter to the Department of Education expressing the concerns of the Committee. .... At the March 22, 2001 meeting, some parents expressed concern and asked questions about the success of Yancey Elementary School children. Dr. Murray, Assistant Superintendent for Instmction~ provided the Board with an update on Yancey with emphasis on the questions that were previously asked by the parents. For more information or to obtain a copy of the information presented, contact the Clerk's office at 972-4055. .... Mr. A1 Reaser, Director of Building Services, updated the Board on the bids for the construction of Baker-Butler Elementary School. Bids were received and the project is coming in $1.2million over budget. Staff is currently exploring two options: negotiating with the low bidder and rebidding. Another update will be provided to the Board at its April 26 meeting. For more information, contact the Department of Building Services at 975- 9340 'DONATIONS ~_ . :~ The Board approved the following donations: A donation' of a Power Macintosh 7300 computer with monitor, keyboar~:andprinter to ~estem Albemarle High School's Latin Program. .... Anonymous donations to Murray Elementary. School in the amount of $2,500. The donation will assist in the purchase of laptop computers for use by teachers and staff. .... The donation of a clothes dryer to Hollymead Elementary School. .... The donation of $167.00 to the Gifted Program at Monticello High School. .... The donation to Albemarle County Schools from the Sycamore House Studio Art Shop in the amount of $250.00. This donation will help defray the costs of the Fine Arts Festival. ACTION ITEMS The Board approved: .... Approving the recommended textbooks for Grade 8 Civics and Economics and Grades 6-12 Language Arts. .... Approving the 2001-2002 School Division Calendar as presented. The calendar includes 180 instructional days, nine weather make-up days, eight school planning days, three early release days, two days for centrally-based staff development, a holiday before Thanksgiving, Martin Luther King Day as a holiday, a Winter Holiday beginning at the end of school on December 21, 2001 with schools reopening on January 3, 2002, and the last day Of school on June 7, 2002. The complete calendar is posted on the Division webslte at http://kl2.albemarle.org. .... Approving the recommended changes to Youth Risk Behavior Survey. The changes include an updated letter to parents outlining the information asked for in the survey, a new section on human sexuality, and a section on character education. The survey is given to students in grades 6-12. .... Approving an agreement for the rental of Monticello High School and a food services contract with the Association of Investment Management and Research (AIMR).' The contract is for approximately 33 days beginning in mid-June 2001. .... Approving the Year-to-Date Financial Report as presented. At the same time, the Board retained the Board reserve and holdback to address potential energy cost fluctuations and State revenue shortfalls. .... Approving under the Freedom of Information Act that Mr. Grant, At-Large School Board member, provide the Board a list of all constituents that receive his At-Large District Constituent Report so that other Board can notify those individuals that the recent release of the names of non-renewed employees was not the intent of the Board. At the same time, the Board approved that future copies of the report be ~rovided to all Board members. .... E~cpressing formal dissatisfaction arid disappointment with Mr. Grant for releasing the names of non- renewed employees. .... Directing staff to draft policy reflecting the Board's long-standing practice not to release names or other identifying characteristics of employees and students according to Virginia law in order to protect the privacy rights of individuals. INFORMATION ITEMS The Board received for information, direction and public comment: .... Receiving the Redistricting Committee's recommendation for Baker-Butler Elementary School. At the same time, the Board set a May 9, 2001 Work Session and a May 16 Public Hearing date regarding redistricting. The Board will use the recommendation as a starting point for deliberations on a redistricting plan. The Board hopes to make a decision on the Baker-Butler Elementary School redistricting at the May 24 meeting. For more information contact Dr. Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, at 296-5877. .... Receiving possible strategies for reducing the School Board's Funding Request to meet projected revenues. The Board will hold a Budget Work Session on April 23, 2001 at 6:30 p.m. in Room 331 of the County Office Building. For more information, contact the School Board Clerk's Office at 972-4055. UPCOMING DATES April 16-20, 2001 Spring Break April23,2001 'School Board Budget Work Session, 6:30 p.m., Room 331 of the County Office Building April24,2001 VSBA Central Regional Forum, 5:00 p.m., Rockfish River Elementary School, Alton, Virginia April26,2001 School Board Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Room 241 of the County Office Building May 9, 2001 School Board Redistricting Work Session, 6:30 p.m. May l0,2001 School Board Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Room 241 of the County Office Building May ll, 2001 School Board Joint Meeting with Legislators, 12:00 p.m. May l6,2001 School Board Public Hearing on Redistricting Proposal, 6:30 p.m. May 24, 2001 School Board Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Room 241 of the County Office Building The Albemarle County School Board BoardBriefs Kevin Castner, Superintendent 'Charles Ward, Chairman of the School Board Regular Board' Meeting Thursday,'April 26; 2001 ' ' Room 241, County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road *Charlottesville, yA 22902 http://kl 2.albemarle.org -~ :~,.. - CLOSED MEETING The Board approved the following actions: .... Expelling a high school student through the end of the first semester of the 2001-2002 School Year. .... Granting an attendance appeal of a high school student pending payment of tuition. .... Appointing Jim Jones as principal of Scottsville Elementary School and Greg Domecq as assistant principal of Monticello High School. .... Denying the suspension appeal of an elementary student. PRESENTATIONS .... The Board received a School Improvement Plan Presentation from Western Albemarle High School. The presentation highlighted the three Action Plans for the School Improvement Process. There was also a student presentation regarding Student Forums at the high school. For more information, bontact Western Albemarle High School at 823-8700. ANNOUNCEMENTS The following announcements were given: .... Standards of Learning Tests will be administered May 14-25. For more information, contact the Department of Instruction at 296-5820. .... The Board announced the reassignments and appointments of the following individuals: · Keith Hammon to Principal of Baker-Butler Elementary School - Mr. Hammon has served as Principal of Woodbrook Elementary School since 1987. · Debbie Collins to Principal of Y~ncey Elementary School - Ms. Collins has served as Principal of Red Hill Elementary School since 1996. · Mack Tate to Principal of Red H ill Elementary School - Mr. Tate has served as Principal of Yancey Elementary School since 1990. · Jim Jones to Principal of Scottsville Elementary School - Mr. Jones has been Acting Principal at Scottsville since January. · Greg Domecq to Assistant Principal of Monticello High School - Mr. Domecq has worked at Monticello High School since the school opened in 1998. · Toni Roby to Coordinator of the Enterprise Center - Ms. Roby has served as the Acting Coordinator of the Enterprise during its In'st year of operation. · Kelvin Reid to Coordinator o.f Community Education - Mr. Reid has served as Acting Coordinator for Community Education for the 2000-2001 School Year. · Linda King as Coordinator of Guidance and Testing - Since 1997, Ms. King has worked as Assistant Superintendent for Instruction in Madison County. · Tiffany Seay as Deputy Clerk of the School Board - Ms. Seay assumed her position on April 9, 2001. Based on these recommendations, Albemarle County now has principalship vacancies at Woodbrook and Cale Elementary Schools. A selection process for these positions will begin immediately. DONATIONS The Board approved the following donation: - .... A donation of 12 wooden desks and 12 partition panels from Commonwealth Computers Services for the purpose of setting up a real-life office environment for Office Administration eI~s.ses.~Bus~i~s~ Edueafi0n:,~ The Board approved: .... Adopting a budget for the FY 2001-02 School Year. .... Approving an agreement that allows CATEC to connect its local area ne~brk INFORMATION ITEMS The Board received for information, direction and public comment: .... Receiving the textbook selection and adoption of textbooks for Career and Technical Education. The textbooks will be on display at the Albemarle Resource Center for 30 days. A media release will announce the availability of the textbooks for review by the public. The item will be scheduled on the May 10 agenda for Public Comment and on the May 24 agenda for approval. For more information, contact Carolyn Ross at 296-5812. .... Receiving information on the site selection process for the Southern Elementary School. The Board decoded to defer making a decision on this item until being able to discuss it with the Board of Supervisors. For more information, contact Building Services at 975-9340. .... Receiving information from two Board members, Madison Cummings and Steve Koleszar, regarding the National School Boards Association (NSBA) Conference that was held in San Diego, California. Mr. Koleszar and Mr. Cummings provided the Board with an overview of speakers and workshops that they attended. Information from the conference is on file in the Clerk's Office. OTHER MATTERS The following information was discussed: .... There was Board consensus for staffto review Policy BG-E and to make recommendations for changes to the Policy. UPCOMING DATES May 9, 2001 May 10, 2001 May I1, 2001 School Board Redistricting Work Session, 6:30 p.m., Transportation Department School Board Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Room 241 of the County Office Building School Board Joint Meeting with Legislators, 12:00 p.m., Room 235 of the County Office Buil~ting May 16, 2001 School Board Public Heating on Redistricting Proposal, 6:30 p.m., Sutherland Middle School May 24, 2001 June 6,2001 School Board Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Room 241 of the County Office Building Joint Meeting with the Board of Supervisors, 4:30 p.m., Room 235 of.the County Office Building June 7, 2001 Regular Board Meeting, 6:30 p.m., Room 241 of the County Office Building AL B E-MARL E PUBLIC PUBL lC WEBSITE: COUNTY SCHOOLS INFORMATION CENTER tt ttp : //t; 12. a lb em a cie. o rg MEDIA RELEASE For I~ Rdease DATE: April26, 2001 CONTACT: Frank Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services PHONE: 804/296-5877 Albemarle County Announces Personnel Assignments At its April 26 meeting, the Albemarle County Schools announced the following personnel assignments for the 2001-02 school year: Keith Hammon to Principal of Baker-Butler Elementary School- Mr. Hammon has worked in Albemarle County since 1968. He has served as Principal at Woodbrook since 1987. Previously, he served as Principal at Stony Point Elementary School from 1975 to' 1987. Debbie Collins .to Principal at Yancey Elementary School- Ms. Collins has served as Principal at Red Hill since 1996. She previously worked in Albemarle County from 1983 to 1993 serving as a teacher, Instructional Coordinator and Staff Development Coordinator. Ms. Collins also served as Principal of Greenbrier Elementary School in the City of Charlottesville from 1993 to 1996. Mack Tate to Principal of Red Hill Elementary School- Mr. Tate has worked in the Albemarle County Schools since 1977, and has been Principal of Yancey since 1990. He previously served as a teacher at Burley Middle School from 1977 to 1982, Assistant Principal at Burley from 1982 to 1985, and as an Instructional Coordinator from 1985 to 1990. Jim Jones to Principal of Scottsville Elementary School- Mr. Jones has worked in Albemarle County since 1991 and has been Acting Principal at Scottsville since January. Previously, he served as Assistant Principal at Henley Middle School from 1991 to 1995 and as Assistant Principal at Agnor-Hurt Elementary School from 1995 to 2000. Prior to working in Albemarle County, Mr. Jones worked as a teacher, coach, and administrator in the City of Charlottesville for 26 years. Greg Domecq to Assistant Principal at Monticello High School - Mr. Domecq has worked at Monticello High School since the school opened in 1998 as an Administrative Assistant, Head Basketball Coach, and Acting Assistant Principal. Toni Roby to Coordinator of the Enterprise Center- Ms. Roby has worked as a teacher in Albemarle County since 1990. During the 2000-01 school year, she served as Acting Coordinator during the Enterprise Center's first year of operation. 401 Mclntire Road * Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone (804) 9~2-4055, Fax (804) 296-5869 * WEB SITE: http://kl2.albemafle.org Kelvin Reid to Coordinator of Community Education - Mr. Reid has worked as a Teac~]ir~g' Assistant, After School Teacher, and After School Head Teacher since 1989. During the 2000-01 school year, Mr. Reid served as Acting Coordinator. Linda King as Coordinator of Guidance and Testing-Since 1997, Ms. King has worked as Assistant Superintendent for Instruction in Madison County. She also has experience as a teacher in Pennsylvania and Alabama and as a guidance counselor and as a Personnel Director and Staff Development Coordinator in Madison County. · Ms. Tiffany Seay as Deputy Clerk- Ms. Seay assumed this position on April 9. Based on these recommendations, Albemarle County now has principalship vacancies at Woodbrook (based on Mr. Hammon's reassignment) and Cale (due to the retirement of Mr. Gerald Terrell). A selection process for these positions will begin immediately. 401 McIntire Road · Charlottesville, VA 22902 Phone (804) 972-4055, Fax (804) 296-5869 · WEB SITE: http://kl2.albemarle.org COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Response to Audit Committee Recommendations SU BJ ECTIPROPOSAL/REQU EST: Staff Report on the Audit Committee's Recommendations received by the Board of Supervisors on 12/6/00. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Spencer, Bullard AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2001 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: .ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY.'~~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: On December 6, 2000, the Audit Committee presented a report titled "Recommendations regarding the Annual Budget and Audit Processes" to the County Board of Supervisors. The Audit Committee, consisting of Walter Perkins, Lindsay Dorrier and Ken Boyd prepared this report, which contains ten recommendations. The Audit Committee put forth these recommendations in anticipation of increased budget complexity and the need they see for the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to have a clearer understanding of the budget process and financial information. The Audit Committee requested that the Board of Supervisors approve these recommendations. The Board of Supervisors requested a thorough staff report on their recommendations, prior to taking any action on the report. DISCUSSION: Staff carefully reviewed the Audit Committee's ten recommendations, conducted extensive research concerning the auditing functions in local government, and provides the following observations and recommendations: Audit Committee's Recommendation: 1. The BOS and School Board should receive year-end reconciliation reports by October 31 of each year. Staff Comments: Staff has historically presented a preliminary end of the year report to the Board of Supervisors at the end of September or early October. This past year, the first preliminary review on year end projected expenditures and revenues went to the Board on September 20"~. Although this is not the official external auditor's report, it does provide a preliminary overview of the revenues and expenditures for the prior year, as well as an approximate estimate of the year-end carry-over or fund balance. The official external audit is usually not completed until the end of November and it would be extremely difficult to push that schedule forward. The County books close on August 15th (45 days after the close of the Fiscal Year) with final reconciliation for the auditor completed by mid-September. Once the auditors begin their review, it takes at least 45 to 60 days for them to complete their findings, which is early to mid November at the earliest. Staff Recommendation: The BOS and School Board continue to receive preliminary end of the year reports by early October and the official external audit in November at the earliest. Audit Committee's Recommendation: 2. The BOS and the School Board should receive quarterly financial reports at the first Wednesday BOS meeting in November, February, May and August. They should also be available to the School Board. These reports should include bar graphs, which will enable the boards to make comparisons and analyze trends. Staff COmments: The Board approved a new quarterly financial report that is presented to the Board in the month following the quarterly closing of accounts, i.e. October books close mid-November with the financial report is presented at the December Board day meeting. Charts and graphs have been included, as requested. The new quarterly financial report is available to the AGENDA TITLE: Response to Audit Committee Recommendations May 2, 2001 Page 2 School Board, although the School Board receives a separate school fund financial report prepared by their financial office in a different format. Staff Recommendation: The BOS continue to receive quarterly financial reports in the new format and the School Board continue to receive a separate financial report prepared by their financial office and in a format suitable to the School Board. Audit Committee's Recommendation: 3. The County should develop an Equipment, Replacement, and Maintenance Category or Budget. Staff Comments: Separating the County's capital equipment, replacement and maintenance items into a separate fund has also been a discussion issue for the CIP Technical Team. Currently, all ongoing maintenance/repaidreplacement items are shown as a one line-item allocation within each functional area of the Capital Improvement Program, i.e. County Office Building and Court Square maintenance and repair projects are in a single maintenance line item within the CIP Administrative function, all Parks/Rec maintenance/repair items are in one line-item in the Parks/Rec functional area, libraries, etc. Therefore, total repaidmaintenance/replacement costs can be planned, tracked and reported in both the general government and the school division five-year CIP period even though they are not in separate funds. Separating out all the equipment/repaidmaintenance projects in a separate fund could easily be done, although the Committee has questioned whether the separation would truly bring more accountability or just more accounting work. If the purpose of separating out equipment, replacement and maintenance, is to increase the funding by allocating a specific amount to this fund each year in the same manner as has been done for the Capital Fund, then there would be more reason to set up these separate funds for both the school division and general government. However, simply setting up a separate accounting fund will not provide any additional funding for equipment, replacement and maintenance at this point unless committed funds are diverted from the ClP. Staff Recommendation: Because there are both pros and cons to establishing such a fund, staff would like to pursue the specifics of an equipment replacement and maintenance fund with the financial advisors and bring back a recommendation to the Board in July. Audit Committee's Recommendation: 4. The County should develop a formal process for dealing with annual surpluses. Staff Comments: Staff agrees with the recommendation that guidelines should be developed for allocating end-of-the year surplus revenues and expenditure savings. Other localities have developed such carry-over guidelines that allow departments to recapture a certain percentage of their savings (as the school division does), direct a specific percentage of the carry-over to the capital program, reserve a portion for innovations, or fund needed one-time capital or replacement equipment, as we currently do in Albemarle. However, these guidelines must provide the Board with the flexibility to address any critical issues or unforeseen emergency needs in any given year. Staff Recommendation: Although the majority of the "projected end-of-the-year surplus" has already been allocated during FY02 budget work sessions, staff plans to bring proposed carry-over guidelines to the Board in July after discussion with the financial advisors. Audit Committee's Recommendation: 5. The County should have a policy which guides the BOS and the School Board in their decisions regarding future land acquisition. The County should develop specific criteria, which govern every land purchase. Staff Comments: StafFs research indicates that audit committees typically do not play a role in advising the Board on the development of financial policies of this nature. Land purchase decisions are policy decisions made by the Board of Supervisors usually in conjunction with the approved Capital Improvement Program, which includes land costs for schools and other public facilities. AGENDA TITLE: Res ponse to Audit Committee Recommendations May 2, 2001 Page 3 Outside of the approved CIP, however, the Board must retain the flexibility to take advantage of a land purchase when, in their judgment, that land purchase is in the County's best future interests. Staff Recommendation: Should the BOS desire the development of a land acquisition policy, staff will assist the Boar(: as directed. Audit Committee's Recommendation: 6. The County should develop a formal, written investment strategy, approved by the BOS for tax fund reserves. Staff Comments: The County has three written investment policies included in the 1994 approved Financial Management Policies: a) The County wi//invest County revenue to maximize the rate of return while maintaining a Iow level of risk. The County will conduct an analysis of cash f/ow needs on an annual basis. Disbursements, collections, and deposits of all funds will be scheduled to insure maximum cash availability and investment potential. b) The Director of Finance shall maintain a system of internal controls for investments, which shall be documented in writing and subject to review by the County's independent auditor. c) Contractual consolidated banking services will be reviewed regularly. The County invests all of its available funds, including any dedicated reserve amounts, in the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP), which is managed by the State Treasurer's Office. They in turn contract out with several private investment firms to invest the pooled funds from localities across the state. With such a large investment pool, the funds are invested in a blend of Iow to moderate risk investments, which are governed by state code investment guidelines. The County is charged 8 basis points as an annual administrative fee, deducted from daily earnings. To date, the rate of return has been competitive, if not better than other indexes. In comparing LGIP with 475 other institutional money market funds, the LGIP fourth quarter earnings averaged 6.61% compared to the average for other institutional money market funds at 6.14%. Funds are rolled over on a daily basis and there are no penalties for withdrawal, thereby insuring that the County has investment liquidity, as well as a competitive return. The LGIP follows state code guidelines related to investments. Staff Recommendations: Staff recommends the County continue to adhere to the investment policies established in 1994. Audit Committee's Recommendation: 7. The County should provide all financial reports to the County Auditor and the Auditor should be available to the Audit Committee on a regular basis to help provide ongoing independent analysis of the financial data in the budget. Staff Comments: All financial reports are available to the County Auditor. The County Auditor can be contracted to provide additional financial/budgetary analysis to the Audit Committee or to staff on a regular basis, although the additional time will cost money. If the County Auditor is contracted to provide ongoing analysis, the specific task or charge should be clearly defined prior to contracting for their service. Audit Corn mittee's Recommendation: 8. The BOS should hire an internal auditor or contract with an auditing firm, which reports to the BOS, through the Audit Committee. Staff Comments: See attached report. Audit Committee's Recommendation: 9. The Audit Committee should be increased in size from three members to five members. The two new members should be citizen members, experienced in finance, management and government. AGENDA TITLE: Response to Audit Committee Recommendations May ~2, 2001 Page 4 Staff Comments: According to research, the primary responsibility of audit committees is to oversee the independent audit of the government's financial statements, from the selection of the independent auditor to the resolution of audit findings. Audit committees have also traditionally reviewed internal control structures, financial reporting requirements and compliance with all laws and regulations. As such, members of the audit committee should collectively possess "experience and expertise in accounting, auditing and financial reporting". These committees should contain at least one representative each from the legislative and executive branches of the government, according to the research. The County's Audit Committee was formed in 1984 by the Board Chairman to add tess and oversee the problems pointed out in the FY83 auditor's management letter. Since that time, the Audit Committee has consisted of two Board members until a third member from the School Board was added in the current year at the School Board's request. Although the Audit Committee's charge was not clearly specified or documented at the time it was created, the County's 1994 Financial Policies state that "the County will maintain an audit committee comprised of the County Executive or his designee, the Director of Finance and two members of the Board of Supervisors. The committee's responsibility will be to review the financial statements and results of the independent audit and to communicate those results to the Board of Supervisors." Some governments include citizens on their audit committees to enable the committee to have persons with financial expertise that might not be available from board members. Additionally, some Virginia localities include citizens on "financial oversight" or "budget review" committees, although these committees have a much broader scope of responsibility than the standard audit committee. Staff Recommendation: A charter, which clearly outlines the mission, responsibilities and composition of the audit committee should be developed and approved by the Board. if the scope of the audit committee is to be expanded to be more of a citizen budget or financial oversight committee, then the committee's objectives should be clearly defined prior to deciding on the appropriate mix of board members, citizens and staff. Also, if a School Board member is to remain a permanent member of the County's Audit Committee, then the County's Financial Policies should be amended to reflect that addition. Audit Committee's Recommendation: 10. The Audit Committee, with county staff, will develop specific plans and proposals to implement this report, for subsequent review and approval by the BOS. Staff Comments: This report includes staff's observations and recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff proposes the following recommendations in response to the December 6, 2000 Audit Committee Report: 1. The BOS and School Board continue to receiv.e preliminary end of the year reports by early October and the official external audit in November. 2. The BOS continue to receive quarterly financial reports in the new format with copies available to the School Board. 3. The County continue to adhere to the investment policies established in the 1994 Financial Policies. 4. Staff develop and the Board approve, a charter, which clearly outlines the mission, responsibilities and composition of the audit committee. 5. Expand the County's budget office, rather than hire an internal auditor, as outlined in the attached report on Internal Auditing, if the Board wishes to enhance the County's performance management functions. 6. Staff to develop a land acquisition policy, if the Board so desires. 7. Staff to provide recommendations to the Board in July on a carry-over policy and a separate equipment, replacement and maintenance fund. 01.096 County Executive Staff Report to the Board of Supervisors on The Audit Committee's Recommendation 8 Local Government Internal Auditing Functions May 2, 2001 BACKGROUND On December 6, 2000, Albemarle County's Audit Committee submitted a report to the Board that contained nine recommendations. This report specifically addresses Recommendation #8 regarding internal auditing. Specifically, Recommendation #8 states the: "Board of Supervisors hire an intemal auditor or contract with an auditing firm, which reports to the BOS, through the Audit committee. The internal auditor will identify waste and inefficiency and analyze programs for effectiveness and make independent recommendations to the BOS, through the Audit Committee. Guidelines for managing the internal auditor will be developed by the Audit Committee and approved by the BOS." Per the Board's request, County Executive staff thoroughly researched the internal audit function in local governments. Staff identified resources available through the Government Finance Officers' Association and the National Association of Local Government Auditors, reviewed auditing-related literature, examined current policies and procedures undertaken in Albemarle County, and surveyed ten Virginia localities regarding auditing and budgetary functions conducted by their organizations. This report defines the auditing function for local governments, discusses the current state of auditing-related activities in Albemarle County, outlines survey findings, and recommends a plan of action. WHAT IS AUDITING?~ Audits are one of the basic tools of financial administration and the execution of policy decisions. Audits can take place either during the implementation of financial decisions or during the evaluation of funded programs. Pre-audits, or audits that occur during implementation, are usually conducted by the government's accounting division before the payment of claims and include a daily check of all revenues and receipts. Post-audits are used to evaluate the financial, managerial and operational functions of government activities. Objectivity is essential to the successful accomplishment of the audit function and therefore, auditing should be undertaken as independently as possible. There are four types of post-audits: Financial and Compliance Audit: Independent public accounting firms usually conduct this type of audit. The auditors examine financial records to certify the legality of expenditures, the proper recording of receipts, the correct operation 'of revenue and expenditure controls, and the reliability and accuracy of financial statements. Potential problems addressed include errors (unintentional misstatements), irregularities (intentional misrepresentations and fraud-motivated alterations), and deficiencies in the governmental control structure. Economy and Efficiency Audit: Also known as management or operational audits, this type of audit examines a governmental unit's managerial and administrative practices for economy and cost efficiency and strives to identify the cause of any cost inefficiencies. ~ Aronson, J. Richard, ed. Management Polices in Local Government Finance. International City/County Management Association (ICMA): Washington, D.C., 1996, pp.194-195. 1 Program Results Audit: This type of audit determines the extent to which a governmental unit has reached program objectives; it also examines the cost, effectiveness of the alternatives that were employed in reaching those objectives. 4. Performance Audit: This audit function combines all three of the other post-audit methods. There is a trend towards Performance Auditing.-2 Because of its usefulness and potential, performance auditing is becoming more commonly used in state and local governments. Traditionally, auditing has focused primarily on financial and compliance issues, but it is now clear that the audit function holds substantial promise for local government managers attempting to improve overall efficiency and effectiveness. Performance audits consist of surveys, fieldwork, reporting, interviews, literature review, contacts with experts and other jurisdictions, observations of work processes and the analysis of data. Performance audits improve service delivery, save costs, and improve accountability. The results of performance auditing are also useful in communicating the quality of management to taxpayers and potential bond holders. During the past 15 years, public agencies began to realize the importance of measuring performance. Management by objectives, program budgeting, operations research techniques, and cost accounting systems are now being used to enhance productivity and improve the quality of services. Because of this, the scope of the audit function as described in the Standards for Audit of Government Organizations, Programs, Activities and Functions by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), commonly referred to as the "Yellow Book" was revised in 1981, 1988, and 1994. These revisions expanded the scope of the audit function to include the evaluation of efficiency of services, compliance with regulations, and the results or performance of government services and programs. For performance audits to be beneficial, an organization should first have established goals, objectives, a clear plan of action and a performance measurement system in place. These audits determine whether the service or program meets the pre-determined goals and objectives and whether the operations result in a benefit for the community. ALBEMARLE COUNTY'S CURRENT AUDITING PRACTICES Currently, the County has the following audit-related functions in place: Pre-audits: Requests for payments, purchase orders, and invoices are often first received at the department level. These bills are reviewed by appropriate department staff and are approved by Department Heads. Requests for payments and approved purchase orders are forwarded to the Finance Department's Accounting and Payroll Division. This Division records expenditures and revenues, prepares accounting statements, maintains accounting records and processes accounts payable checks. Financial: The Finance Department's Accounting and Payroll Division maintains general ledger accounts, monitors all State Compensation Board accounts, monitors and distributes all internal service charges and prepares documents for the annual audit. Robinson Farmer Cox Associates conducts the County's annual financial and compliance post audits and advises the County's Audit Committee. This external audit examines financial records to certify the legality of expenditures, the 2. National Association of Local Government Auditors, Education Committee, Lexington, KY (NAGLA) .... So...You Think You Might be Interested in Hiring a Performance Auditor". Intemet Address: http://www.nalga.org, April 17, 2001. 2 proper recording of receipts, the correct operation of revenue and expenditure controls, and the reliability and accuracy of financial statements. The COunty Executive Office's Budget Division analyzes, designs and assists in the implementation of county financial policies. Economy and Efficiency: Department and Division heads monitor managerial and administrative practices of their departments to maximize economy and cost efficiency. The County Executive's Office plans ways to more efficiently deliver services to citizens. The Executive Assistant and the Budget staff provide policy analysis and conduct special projects intended to improve performance and government efficiency. The Budget staff conducts mid-year expenditure monitoring as part of the annual Budget formation. In addition, they work to develop ways to more effectively link the budget to the county's long- term plans and strategies. Program Results: The Quality Improvement Program (QUIP) provides employee training, and serves as a focus for the County's continuous improvement efforts. The Performance Improvement Coordinator (currently a vacant position) reviews and improves processes by assisting departments to better utilize problem-solving tools and performance measures, coordinating the County's strategic planning efforts and assisting with the quality improvement (STRAND) employee training program. MARKET SURVEY During the months of March and April 2001, staff conducted telephone surveys with the following ten counties: · Loudoun · Prince William · James City · Stafford · Spotsylvania · Hanover · Fauquier · Roanoke · York · Henrico These counties were chosen as the market region based on population, budget size, and/or growth patterns that were similar to that of Albemarle County. The study's aim was to fully understand the methods each county used to deal with the internal auditing functions of performance evaluation, measuring cost efficiencies, and identifying irregularities and waste within departments. For many of the counties, these functions were performed outside of an internal auditing department and within a budget office. Questions were broken into two categories: "the internal auditor" and "the budget office". Within the "internal auditor" category, we asked each county whether they currently have an internal auditor, and if so, who he/she reports to, what their responsibilities entail, what type of work they do, where they are located within the governmental structure, and how the information they gather is used. Within the "budget" category, we asked questions dealing with budget size, budget staff, departmental history, their location within the county government, and if or how each dealt with management and performance issues that might be otherwise handled by an internal auditor. The findings are summarized below. The Internal Auditor According to the research, only four of the ten counties surveyed currently have internal auditors: Loudoun, Prince William, Henrico, and Hanover. None of these auditors report directly to the governing board. Instead, two report directly to the Director of Finance and two report to the County Executive/Administrator or Manager. However, although Hanover County's auditor currently reports to management, the goal eventually is to make this office independent and report through the Audit Committee to the Board. Hanover and Loudoun have one internal auditor on staff, while Prince William and Henrico each have an internal audit office with a staff of 4 persons. Stafford County is looking to hire an internal auditor next year; however, this position has been created specifically to monitor tax collections. In Fauquier County, the Management Analyst may begin to conduct some internal auditing functions for their board beginning in JUly 2001. Seven counties have audit committees or finance committees whose responsibilities always included reviewing the external audit. Finance committees had more extensive charges, including reviewing anything that had a fiscal impact on the county. However, no conclusive generalizations could be made about them because each committee's composition, responsibilities, and schedule were unique to each jurisdiction. All four audit offices assist with the external audit of the independent auditor. In addition, they advise and consult with management for departmental improvements in operating efficiencies and results, monitor the accuracy of performance measures, audit special projects for correction as required, and follow-up on prior audits to evaluate implementation of recommendations. Prince William County also and publishes a "Service Efforts citizen survey to get feedback provided and tie the results from reviews the performance measures that are included in the budget and Accomplishment Report." They continually update the County's from county residents about levels of satisfaction from services this survey back into the budget process. In Hanover, the newly hired auditor has completed a 2 year audit plan that include four primary categories of responsibilities: departmental assistance on a as needed basis, performance audits that link performance indicators with results, compliance audits across the government, and special projects as required. Additionally, as staffing increases, the audit office will perform audits of the School Division. The following chart demonstrates the relationship between the size of a county's budget and the establishment of an Internal Auditor position. Of the counties surveyed, those with budgets less than $267,500,000 do not currently have internal auditors on their staff. The average budget of the 4 counties with internal auditors is $362,000,000, while the average budget of those without internal auditors is $129,000,000. With a budget of $173,117,976, Albemarle County does not yet have a budget size comparable to those counties with internal auditors. 4 Chart A - BudRet Size in Relationship to the Internal Audito__r Appearance of Internal Auditor as Function of Budget Size $500,000,000 $450,000,000 $400,000,000 $150,000,000 $1oo,ooo,ooo $50,000,000 $- H enrico _,~- Prince William nove ¢¢¢ r Loudoun Stafford ~ Roanoke Spotsylvania ~AI quier ¥ ~ James City Counties ~-WRh Internal Auditor ~W~hout Internal Auditor Albemarle This study indicates the establishment of an internal auditor position also relates to population. Counties with internal auditors had an average population of 199,758. Hanover, with a population of 86,320, was the smallest county with an internal auditor, while Stafford, with a population of 92,446 was the largest county without an internal auditor. Chart B illustrates the relationship between county population and the internal auditor position. Chart B, County Population in Relationship to the internal Audito__r 300,000 250,000 c200,000 o 150,000 o ~100,000 50,000 Appearance of Internal Auditor as Function of Population Prince William J Loudoun / Hanov¢¢.Albe ~_a~_lee r .~ for( James C~y Fauquier Counties ~W~h [qternal Auditor ~W~thout Internal Auditor Albemarle 5 The Budget Office Since so few of the counties surveyed had internal auditors, information collected about each budget office proved very useful in finding other ways that jurisdictions incorporate the functions of an internal auditor into governmental procedures. In addition to creating their annual budgets, Budget departments monitor expenditures, coordinate the establishment of performance measures, complete five year forecasts, review processes, make recommendations regarding organizational improvement initiatives, assist departments articulate their needs and accomplish goals, and incorporate performance measures with the allocation of resources. For example, in Fauquier County, the Budget Office monitors expenditures and when a potential problem is identified that they cannot solve, they hire an independent auditor to investigate. Additionally, as of July 1, the Management Analyst currently in the Budget Office may be directly responsible to the Board on issues that the Board requires further scrutiny. Also of interest is Prince William County's Budget Office, which operates like an Office of Management and Budget. They are front-runners in the area of performance budgeting and will be speaking at an ICMA Best Practices Conference in May. The office conducts efficiency studies, prepares a five year budget plan, and has an Internal Auditing division that is housed within the Budget Office and reports to the County Executive. This division audits performance measures, checks integrity of performance data, and ties citizen surveys to the budget process. Statistical findings include the following: Seven of the ten counties' budget offices have a role in performance measurement and strategic planning. There are varying degrees of integration within each office and those that reported the most success in maintaining high levels of performance evaluation had the most coordination between the budget, the strategic plan, and highly visible performance measures. Fifty percent of the budget offices are housed in the Finance Department, 40% report to the County AdministratodExecutive, and 10% report to a separate OMB office which reports directly to the county administrator or executive. Many of these offices are able to incorporate expanded functions because of their budget office size. The median ratio of budget staff to county residents is 0.038:1000 persons. Loudoun County, with 14 staff persons, has the highest ratio, 0.083:1,000 persons, while Roanoke County, with less than 2 full time employees, has the lowest ratio. Currently, Albemarle County has a ratio one-third lower than the median. Table A provides more detailed information. 6 Table A - Bud_.et Office Staffing County Staffing Population Staff/I;000 ~oanoke 1:75 85,778 0.020 S potsylv a nia 2.00 90,395 0.022 H a nover 2.00 86,320 0.023 Albemarle 2.00 84,000 0.024 Henrico 8.00 262,300 0.030 Stafford* 3.50 92,446 0.038 James City* 2.50 48,102 0.052 F a uqu ie r 3.00 55,139 0.054 Prince William 18.00 280,813 0.064 York* 4.50 56,297 0.080 Loudoun 14.00 169,599 0.083 Med ia n 3.00 86,320 0.038 These counties also employ temporary help during budget development that is not included in the staffing figures. A detailed summary of the survey findings is available upon request. ANALYSIS Audits should be conducted as independently and objectively as possible. The trend across the nations is towards performance auditing, focusing on the evaluation and efficiency of services. Seventy percent of the counties surveyed have performance measures within their budget, while Albemarle County does not. Considering the trend toward performance auditing, this is an area in which Albemarle County can substantially improve. Although Albemarle County does many auditing related functions of pre and post audits (i.e. the QUIP program), there is no comprehensive unit that coordinates the performance auditing/evaluation functions. None of the four counties that had internal auditors had them reporting directly to Board. Albemarle County does not yet have a budget size comparable to those with internal auditors. But, Albemarle County is approaching the population of Hanover, one of the four counties with an internal auditor. This indicates that Albemarle County is at the point where it should establish a way to better coordinate audit related functions. Many jurisdictions incorporate the functions of a performance auditing within their budget or OMB offices. Currently, Albemarle County would need to the increase the size of their budget office to reach the median "staff to population" ratio in the jurisdictions surveyed. RECOMMENDATION Based on this analysis, Albemarle County is at a point where a single division could be effective in expanding the County's comprehensive performance evaluation efforts and coordinating these efforts with the allocation of resources. Should the Board desire the County develop a more comprehensive performance management system, this can be accomplished by a restructuring of Albemarle County's current Budget Division into a "Office of Management and Budget Division (OMB)" that is housed within the County Executive's Office. By including the County's currently vacant Performance Coordinator position into this Division, adding an additional Management Analyst position, and establishing an account that can be used to hire an independent auditor when required, this Division should then be able to successfully manage these efforts, in conjunction with all existing budgeting responsibilities. These additional responsibilities should include: Providing information to improve public accountability and to communicate results to citizens; Establishing performance indicators that tie strategic planing efforts to the allocation of resources; Determining the reliability and validity of performance measures; Assisting in coordinating the achievement of desired results and tie them to performance indicators; Link budgeting and long-range financial planning to performance; Enhancing productivity; and Finding alternatives that improve cost efficiency. RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION AND TIMELINE ACTION RESULTS TIMETABLE Enhance the Budget Manager's Budget Director provides direction for June 2001 position (currently this is a the expanded functions of OMB in vacant position) addition to all budget-related duties Assign Performance Coordinator Performance Coordinator establishes June 2001 position to OMB (currently this is and monitors performance measures a vacant position) and conducts process improvements in coordination with OMB's overall efforts OMB establishes an account for OMB provides a means to perform July 2001 the hiring of an independent detailed analysis of any potential fraud auditor, as required, and inefficiencies OMB conducts further analysis of OMB enables County to incorporate July 2001 jurisdiction's that are identified as systems that improve service delivery front-runners in performance evaluation techniques OMB conducts citizen survey OMB measures satisfaction levels of Fall 2001 government services and assists with policy improvements and resource allocation 8 tOMB hires an additional OMB's ability to conduct and monitorFall 2001 Management Analyst policy analysis and pr°(~b~S improvements is improved OMB staff obtains training in Training increases staff's ability in Feb 2002 performance evaluation functions performance evaluation RECOMMENDED CHANGE TO ORGANIZATION CHART Board of Supervisors County Executive's Office Office of Mana[lement and Bud[let Division County Departments MAY 2, 2OO~ CLOSED SESSION MOTION I MOVE THAT THE BOARD GO INTO CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO SECTION 2. I -344(A) Of THE CODE Of VirGiNia · UNDER SUBSECTION (I ) TO CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND A PERSONNEL COMPLAINT; AND · UNDER SUBSECTION (7) TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND STAFF REGARDING PROBABLE LITIGATION RELATING TO A TAXATION MATTER, PROBABLE LITIGATION RELATING TO THE IVY LANDFILL, AND PENDING LITIGATION RELATING TO THE DENIAL OF a SITE PLAN. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of/~erv~sors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C. Senior Deputy Clerk April 27, 2001 Vacancies on Boards and Commissions I have updated the list of vacancies on boards and commissions through August 31, 2001. Please advise me if you want me to advertise any of the vacancies. Thank you. Cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis Chamber of Commerce David R Bowerman Rio LindsaF G. Dottier, Jr. Charlotte Y. Humphfis Jack flou~: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902:4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter F. Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas May 14, 2001 Mr. Robert J. Walters Jr. 1645 Ravens PI. Charlottesville, VA 22911-7527 Dear Mr. Walters: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on May 2, 2001, you were reappointed to the Regional Disability Services Board, with said term to run from July 2, 2001 through July 1, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure cc: Commonwealth's Attorney Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay (3. Dottier, 3r. Scotis,,41e Charlotte Y. Humphris ,Jack 3oue~t COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Rivanna Walter E Perkins White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller May 14, 2001 Mr. Jerry E. Jones 116 Wildflower Dr. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Jones: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on May 2, 2001 you were reappointed to the Jordan Development Corporation, with said term to run from August 14, 2001 through August 13, 2002. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure cc: Commonwealth's Attorney Forrest D. Kerns Printed on recycled paper David R Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. ~cottsville Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouett COUNTY OF AIREMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mdntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX [804) 29(5-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkins Whit~ Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller May 11,2001 Mr. A. C. Shackelford, Jr. 3977 Stony Point Rd. Keswick, VA 22947 Dear Mr. Sh~rd: At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on May 2, 2001, you were reappointed to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee, with said term to run from August 2, 2001 through August 1, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/lab Enclosure CC: Commonwealth's Attorney Wayne Cilimberg Printed on recycled paper David P. Bowerman Rio Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr. Scoasville Charlotte Y. Humphris Jack Jouet~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 296-5800 Charles S. Martin Walter E Perkim White Hall Sally H. Thomas Samuel Miller May 11, 2001 Mr. Joseph T. Samuels, Jr. 3435 Ridge Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Sa~els At the Board of Supervisors meeting held on May 2, 2001, you were reappointed to the Acquisition of Conservation Easements Committee, with said term to run from August 2, 2001 through August 1, 2004. I have enclosed an updated roster for your convenience. On behalf of the Board, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Board's appreciation for your willingness to continue to serve the County in this capacity. Sincerely, Sally H. Thomas Chairman SHT/I ab Enclosure CC: Commonwealth's Attorney Wayne Cilimberg Printed on recycled paper WISH TO BE NEW TERM RE- I MAGISTERIAL BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES APPOINTED? i APPOINTMENT? N 2 vacancies- i David 1. Caulson 8/~3/00 8/~2/0~ 1 application (Perkins) sent on 2/2/01. ! Readvertised; still rec'd no new ~ applications. i Jerry E. Jones 8/13/01 I 8113/02 Yes ~iiii ~3~ ~ I ~i ~i 9/30/00 9/29/03 No applications, 1 application (Trachta) sent 1211100; 1 Michael G. Stewart 12/31/00 12/31/01 No Rio application (Jakubowski) sent on 3/2101. Readvertised; 1 new application sent under separate cover, Daniel Montgomery t2/13/00 12/13/02 No Readvertised; still rec'd no new applications, Received no applications. Clark C, Jackson 6/30/01 6/30/05 Not eligible CEIN Received no applications. J. Walter Levering 6/3/01 6/3/04 No 2 vacancies - Rudolph A. Beverly 11/14/04 11/14/04 Wants to resign Applications sent under ~ cover. ...... __ 11/14/04 11/14/04 __ Wa.____nts to resign I WISH TO BE NEW TERM RE- MAGISTERIAL BOARD OR COMMISSION MEMBER TERM EXPIRES EXPIRES [ APPOINTED? APPOINTMENT? HJS VA 3 vacancies - Jeffrey L. Hantman Resigned 4/4/01 N/A N/A A_~p_p~cations due 5/15/01. Cynthia Marie Conte Resigned 4/4/01 N/A N/A Robert L. Self Resigned 4/4/01 N/A N/A 3 vacancies Tim Ti ne.,g_n.~[.- 8/1/01 8/1/04 ......... Left messages A. C. Shackelford, Jr. 8t1/01 8/1/04 Yes ~,, Joseph T. Samuels, Jr. 8/1/01 8/1/04 Undecided Robert J. Walters, Jr. 7/1/01 7/1/04 Yes (Note: See attached letter) Peter G. Halleck 7/8/02 7/8/02 Resi~lned City reappointed him; please do Richard L. Jennings 7/1/01 6/30/04 the same. Piedmont Environmental Council ProFnotin9 and protecting tt~ ?iedn'~ont's rural ecol~orny, natural resources, histor[3 and beauty April 17, 2001 Ms. Sally Thomas Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 Mclntke Road Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902 RE: Albemarle County Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Dear Madame Chairman: I have enjoyed the privilege of my appointment to and service on the County's Fiscal Advisory Committee. Due to personal reasons, I would like at this time to ask the Board to appoint Jeff Wemer, the PEC's Charlottesville Albemarle Land-Use Field Officer, in my place. For the past year, Jeff has sat in on all scheduled Advisory Committee meetings and has heartily and knowledgeably participated in all discussions. I know that you have known Jeff for some time and are well aware of his academic and professional credentials. In brief, he holds a Bachelor of Science Degree in Forestry & Wood Sciences from West Virginia University ('85) and a Masters Degree in Urban Planning with the Certificate in Historic Preservation from the University of Virginia's School of Architecture ('98). Between 1985 and 1996, he worked in the construction industry, the last 3 years spent as a self-employed construction manager on large-scale residential projects. After he received his graduate degree, he worked for the University of Virginia's Facilities Management where his work focused on projects in and around the Academical Village. Jeff has been with the PEC as our local Field Officer since September 1999. He is married with two small children and resides in downtown Charlottesville. He is involved in the communky as the assistant coach for the boys lacrosse team at Albemarle High School. In the time that I have known Jeff, he has consistently proven that he is a steadfast advocate of the PEC's goals and objectives while also being fair- and open-minded and holistic in his review of issues and debates that challenge our positions. It is my sincere t~elief that Jeff will not only offer to the committee a valuable perspective but also a balanced and honest representation of not just of the PEC's vision but also of the community in general. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 981-0704. Very truly yours, Peter Hallock P.O. Box 460 · Warrenton. Virginia · 20188 o 540-347-2334 · Fax 540-349-9003 I 1 I I Rose Hill Drive · Suite One · Charlottesville. virginia · 22903 · 804-977-2033 · Fax 804-977-6306 130 West Main Street · Suite 206 ° P.O. Box 266 · Orange, Virginia 22960 · 540-672-0141 ° Fax 540-672-6265 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Members of the Board of Supervisors Laurie Bentley, C.M.C~ ~-"~ / Senior Deputy Clerk ~/ April 27, 2001 Applications for Boards and Commissions I have attached the applications received for vacancies on various Boards/Commissions. Thank you. Attachments cc: Bob Tucker Larry Davis BOARD OR COMMISSION NEW TERM APPLICANT/ INTERVIEW, EXPIRE INCUMBENT IF DATE SCHEDULED C~ Marshall Thompson AR Jody Blatt Eleanor G°hdes-Baten C. Henry Hinnant, III Jane N Kohr Candace M. P. Smith M. Kirk Train Henry F. Weinschenk County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) Board/Commission/Committee Equalization Board- Applicant's Name C. Marshall Thompson Full Home Address 3541 Loftlands-Drive Earlysville, VA 22936 Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Rio Employer Litton Marine Systems Phone 804-974-2428 Business Address 1070 Seminole Trail Charlottesville, VA 22901 Home Phone 804-974-1993 Occupation/Title Software Engineering Section Head Years Resident in Albemarle County. 19 Previous Residence 2621 Commonwealth Drive Education (,Degrees and Graduation Dates) B.S. Computer Science. UVa, 1983. Charlottesville, VA 22901 MBA, James Madison University, 1998. Date of Employment 09/19/1983 Spouse's Name Virginia R. Thompson Number of Children 2 Master of Computer Science, UVa, 1988. Memberships in Fraternal, Business, Church and/or Social Groups Earlysville Area Residents League. Beta Gamma Sigma National Business Honor Fraternity. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Broadus Memorial Baptist Church. Charlottesville Track Club. Public, Civic ~nrt Charitable Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Loftlands Glen Homeowners Association Treasurer and Exec Board Member. Regular supporter of local charitable and cultural groups. Chairman of annual corporate golf tournament. Activities/Interests include outdoor recreation, gardening, reading, travel, exercise, music, and cultural events. Reason(s) forWishingto Serve onthis Board/Commission/Committee Fair, consistent assessment of real estate is vitally important to county residents and to government, and I would welcome the opportunity to serve in achieving this goal. This interest, along with my professional/educational backeround and years as a counW homeowner, would make me an effective Eoualization Board member. The information provided on this application will be released to the public upon request. S~nature D~e Return to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 03~29/2001 FAX#_.' FAX O ~ce of the Board of County Supervisors (~ 04)296-5800 FROM: J$d.y Blatt TI~LF~pHON, ~E. 923.8092 FAX #: 923-0151 DATE: # PAGES(inc ~M]~SSAGE: Enclosed ple~ · e Architect enclosk[g a cc serving, m al openings on tt [onday, March 26, 2001 cover): find an application for your recently advertised opening on ral Review Board. Ia support of this application I am also ,vet letter and resume outli~ing my experience and .interest ia lditioa, I would be interested ia being considered for any te Plamliag Commission. Thank You foi your consideration. 0~/26/20B1 09:~5 80492~01§1 JOD¥ 8LATT lt~20 Fro;Hills Road. Charlottes~lle, VA 22901 ,~ (804) 925-8092 Office of the Board ~ County Supervisors 40'1 Mclnfim Ro~:l ~ Charlottesville, VA :2{29024596 FAX: (804) 29~-5800 Mareh26,2001 To the Office of the Board of County Supervisors: Enclosed please fln,il an application and a copy of my resume for the recently advertised opel":~l; the Architectural Review Board, I would also be interested in being considered for any open~ .:j., on: the Planning Commission or related committees, .should they become available. ! have recently mov~t to Albemarle County as a result of my husband accepting a position in ti' ~ and am interested ~n becoming more involved in my new community. ! served for five yea. r.~ ~.. a member of the No.rt~ampton, Massachusetts Planning Board and related sub-committees and t: .]u~ :l it a rewarding experiffnce and a valuable Way to learn more about and contribute to the city. Ir m. ~ny. ways, Northampto~h is like Charlottesville, albeit somewhat smaller (It ha,s, a pOl~ule.:.'~n. approximately 30,000 not including student~). _Lo.~c~...._t~d in western .M, assechusettz Pioneer W~: ie} :, it' is the Hampshire c~,unty seat and center of the Five College Area. It is the home to Sm~ i.. oil.'ge and just across the dyer from Amherst, MA where the University of Massachusetts at Ar'lh~. Amherst College a~d Hampshire College are located. Nearby in South Hadley, MA is Mt t. :~lY:,k. el College, As with Charlottesville, there is a vibrant arts community and an active local bi ~i~. community which, t/pgether, have succeeded in developing and maintaining a vibrant downtow ~ ~: '~ile managing growth ir~ the outlying commercial and residential areas. Because of its rich eightee~ ih. nd nineteenth century~rchitectural hedtage and the challenges of growth and the need to make f; .~1. ,~es accessible, and respo_n, sive to modern needs, lend use and architectural standards were fr =~q,..,~nt' issues facing the pl~knnmg board. [ I am currently eml$oyed by the Health Care Financing Administration in Baltimore, altho~. ~h schedule is flexible! and i am able to work part of the time from my home office. Enclosed fi.,;.:..)ur reference is a copy ~ my resume. " ! ! woul,d be very intterested in meetin, g with members of the Boar,d of County Supervisors or ,;It regarding my interest and thank you in advance for your consideration, $inc~rely,~- 05/2~/2001 89:35 8049230151 ):Jody B!&%t COMPAN]: JOD¥ Bk~TT P~GE 83 County of Albemm'le 0~/26/200i 09:~5 ~04~2~0i51 ~ODY BL~TT P~GE 84 Business (410) 786 PROFILE Health care pr JODY BLATT 1620 Far Hills Road. Charlottesville, VA 22901 5921 Residence (804) 923-8092 ~gram manager and analyst with twenty years experience and expertise ir strategic plan ling, policy analysis, project management, data analysis; informatio~ systems, and i lelivery system operations. In depth knowledge of managed care program.,.~ and operation~, 'including those serving Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries, gainsI from management positions with HMOs and pdvata health care organizations as well a.,. government a~.encies. Proven ebil.ity to effeofively lead teams, manage programs am staff, commuqicate effectively both orally and in wdting, and analyze data to provide: actionable infcirmation. ,pROFESSIONAL EXPERIENC~ HEALTH CARE FIN ANCING ADMINISTRATION Division of De~ ~tonstrafion Programs Baltimore, MD! March, 1999 - Presenii Project Design, coorct c~elNery; provi for demonstm /.Semor Social Science Research Analyst inate and implement projects relating to health care system financing an,: technical assistance for major projects; analyze and evaluate Joss; maintain working relationships with other government agencies an,: private sector, organizations regarding formulation and/or implementation of projecl:~ serve as team leader for assigned I~rogram activities and projects. Major Projem s: · Project Offi,~cer and Team leader for Cardiac and Orthopedic Centers of Excellenc.~= Demonstration · Project o~cer for VA subvention demc~nstration to 'estaDlish managed care heal1:; plans at s~lectecl VA facilities. · Meml0er o~ project team for Department of Defense Subvention Demonstration whicl. establishe~ managed cam health plans at six military treatment facilities. · Member oj: HCFA's Medica~e Fee-For-Service Modernization committee; team leads, ' for Center~ of Excellence and Bundled Payment produ~s work group. · Technical ~expert within the Division of Demonstration Programs for HEDIS and oth~: :' managed lc. are plan performance reporting requirements. Analyzed performance ~:." demonstrdfion programs and advise other project officers and Division Directs- regarding ~EDIS, CAHPS (Consumer Assessment of Healtt~ Plan Survey), and HO~:, (Health of[Seniors) related issu as. Represeni HCFA on National Committee on QuaJity Assurance (NCQA) Policy Pane: Jody Blatt J, ; PREFERRED HEAI.~TI-! NETWORK (PHN) I NOVALIS SERVICE $ CORPORATION. Unthicum, MD ' Dirt'-tot, Me Responsible care cost, uti local plan Corporation, Major Proje · Prepare( informati · Develop~ staff on repo~ng JODY BL~TT PAGE 05 July, 1998- March, 199~ dical Economics & Data Management for implementing reporting systems and supervising the analysis of healt;' lizafion and quality data in regional triple option health plan and developin![ ms a "beta" site for parent management company, Novalis System~ strategic plan for development and implementation of managemen' n reporting systems at health plan. d and implemented training programs for reporting and other health pier. data warehouse and use of analytic software tools for managemen. ed' independent consultant independent consulting practice specializing in the area of health care dat~,. 3rmafion management and managed care. ct~: project to merge reporting databases from several regional health plan'..-'~ e, corporate data warehouse for large national health insurance company, .and tested episode grouper software for major national hea~:= on~ company. -2- Major Proje · Manag~ into sing Evaluate informati INDEPENDENT C~NSULTANT Northampton, MA , Self employ Established analysis, inf~ July, 19~6-January, 1 Developed three tiered reporting structure to provide health plan utilization and co,';'. data in a~ timely and accessible format in order to meet management's clinical an~: financial information needs. · Member~of health plan management team; supervised staff and provided reportin( and analytic SUPl~ort to the Me~iical Director, Provider Relations, Finance Contract~n. 'g, and other health plan departments. · Designe~l pharmacy claims database and related reports. Tested hew analytic software (e.g. episodes of care and inpatient admissior grouper) iand system upgrades. · Initiated ~.,ommJttee to address patient data confidentiality issues across system~ and heal,~h ptan operations. · Supervis~ed technical programming and analytic reporting staff. 0~/26/2001 0~:~5 80~92~0151 J~D¥ ~L~TT P~GE 06 Jody Blair · Updatedi marketing information database for large national managed cart. corporation. · DeveloPed test plans for systems conversion of database and reports for larg=~- national ~anaged care corporation. · Praparec! various written analyses of information management and health can.', reportinglrelated issues. · Designe~, and developed program specifications for provider/network managemen reportingl package. · · Wrote federal grant renewal application for rural community health center pmgrarrl Full continuation grant was awarded by the U.S. Public Health Service, enabling th~ two heal~ centers to continue to operate and expand services. UNICARE LIFE ANI~ HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANY/ March,1994-- July, 199~. (MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSU~NCE COMPANY) Springfield, MA Director, lnfbrmation Management Responsiblei for the development and implementation of information systems an~ analysis of c{ata to evaluate health care utilization and cost experience, employer healtl' care benefit ~rograms, .and provider and network performance. Major Proj ~ec"~: ? · Prepared strategic "vision" for health care information. As a result, over one mil~ior dollars v~as approved to replace the existing data warehouse and totally revaml.'. policy arid provider network reporting systems, · Led na~ ~onal work group representing marketing, actuarial, finance, and system~. staff to ~ valuate corporate health cam information reporting needs. Served ;'s business leader of team to design and implement new data warehous,,., whirl1 in15grated medical, dental, pharmacy, enrollment, premium, end poll .cyhold~.~ informati on in a single relational database. · Designe{I and prepared programming specifications and tested new managemer~ informati on-system reports. · Designet curdcufum for four day training program for reporting analysts on heal~.i= care rep; rting tools, standard measures of data analysis, anct data presentation an..'.. interpret~ation. Prepared and presented several training sessions for staff capitatio ~, performance measurement, and other managed care related topics. · Developed and implemented data quality and editing systems which scanned claims ,(:i~t, for irregularities and inconsis{enCies in coding pai.' · ~uperv~ ,sod management and professional staff July, 1986- July. 1993 MEDICAL WEST COMMUNITY' HEALTH PLAN Springfield, MA Director, R~search, Planning and Development Assistant tc~ tlie Regional Executive Director 1989-1993 1986-198~ 03/26/2001 00:35 0040230151 JODY BLATT PAGE 07 Responsible!for tong range planning, program research and development and reportin[ for medium ~ize, federally qualified staff model HMO which had four mulfi-specialt;, health cent[ers serving commercial, Medicare and Medicaid members as well as serving a srr~all fee for service patient base. Major Proj ~eFts: · Negofiat,~d and managed a variety of physician and hospital contracts, · Manage~ new health center planning and development, Served ~s key resource for health plan staff on Medicare policy includin[ knowledge of HMO risk and HCPP requirements as well as Medicare FFS billin[ rules an~ regulation · Served c~n health plan team responsible for transition from Medicare HMO risk HCPP r.~ntract which covered' approximately 7,000 Medicare beneficiaries, · Implemented new encounter forms to ensure that all o~site and off-site servic_,e,~.~ providedlby health plan staff were recorded accurately and on a timely manner, · Served ~ liaison to BCBS technical systems staff; parti~pated in the deveiopmer and modification of various claims end enrollment processing systems. Developed account repo~ng database along with standardized managemerr information reports. Supported Medical Director and Quality Assurance Committee.~* through ,ihe provision of ad hoc reporting and analytic support for vadous reseam~ efforts, i 1985-1986 VALLEY HEALTH PLAN Planning Manager E HARVARD COMMI~NITY HEALTH PLAN Assistant totthe Chief for After Hours Services Marketing/~nalyst U.S.PUBLIC HEAL~'H SERVICE Pr~identia! Management intern VISTA VOLUNTEER 198q-198~, t984-t98~= 198%198,~. 1980 -1981 1977 - 197E~ 03/25/2001 09:35 8049230151 JODY BLATT PAGE 08 : EDUCATION. N~ional bib~ar~ of Medi(~ine Fellowship i~ Medical Informatics (2000) Harvard Uni~versity School of Public Health M ' aster of Science in Health Policy and Management University o{1' North Carolina Ph.D. Program in School Psychology (degree program not completed) Awarded Un,iversity Fellowship Brown Univ,. rsity A.B. magna ~um laude in Psychology Phi Beta Kal~ )a; National Merit Scholarship Junior seme:rter in Oxford, England COMPUTER SKILL~ Progmmmin I: Quiz, Focus, Crystal Reports Microsoft Off ice Professional (Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint) Microsoft Project Word Perfe~ Lotus COMMUNI ,.T~'. EXPERIENCF IRVINE NAT!JR.AL SCIENCE CENTER PLANNING ~IOARD MEMBER, CITY OF NORTHAMPTON, MA MASSACH 6ETTS HEALTH DATA CONSORTIUM NO RTHAMI: ON HOUSING PARTNERSHIP NONOTUC~ COMMUNITY CHILD CARE, INC, ~ Member, Board of Directors ; Chairperson, Fundraising Committee SOUTHERN~JAMAiCA PLAIN HEALTH CENTER NORTH CAi~OLINA OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY & HEALTH PROJECT Boston, MA Chapel Hill, NC Providence, RI 1998. 2000 1993-1998 1996 1993-1995 t989-1993 1978-1980 1976-1978 -5- County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 (804) 2964843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMI~E (Please type or print) I MagisteriaI District in which your home residence is located ~[ ~ > ~ ~3 ~t/q Employer ~ $.3 ¢C ~--~ /<:.Otx_C ~X~4~c~k5 ~Q C4~ Phone Business Address ~9 . _0, ~ ~ ,~-q, Q U/4v~-~o ~-~Z. sc>~-~cc--~ Occupation/Title ~%~-~ d~X~.~~ ~6'[b~ Date of Employment Yem Resi&nt ~ ~e Coun~ ~ ~ - l q g ~ Spouse's Name Pre~ous Resi&nce ~ A ~ ~ ~ ~a~~ ~ ~ N~ber Education ~e~ees and Graduation Dates) ~'~ Memberships in Fraternal: Business, Church and/or SodaI Groups Public, Civic and Chn6table Office and/or Other Activities or Interests Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee The information provided on thi.s application vail be released to the public upon request. Signature 0 Date Remm to: Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemaxle County 401Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 229024596 FAX: (8O4) 20~4800 BETSY GOHDES-BATEN (804) 293-5552 3508 Wedgewood Court, Keswick, Virginia 22947 PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING: · University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, Master of Regional Planning, Focus: Housing And Community Development, 1996 (no GPAs). Work includes: Planning for Historic Preservation, History of North Carolina Architecture, Urban Spatial Structures, Urban Revitalization, Urban Design Theory, Community Development, Housing Law, Housing Policy Analysis, Housing and Real Estate Investment Analysis, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Accounting, Economics, Statistics, Demographics, Nonprofit Management * Planning Internship: City of Charlottesville, VA, May-August, 1995. * Community Development Class Project East Market Street Revitalization Plan, Greensboro, NC, Winner, NCAPA Graduate Project Award, 1997. · University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, Master of Science in Historic Preservation, 1993 (GPA 3.5/4.0). Work includes: Architectural History, Architectural Conservation, Historic Preservation Policy, Historic Preservation Law, Economic Incentives for Histvric Preservation, National Re~ster Practicum, Architectural Survey Methodology * PreservationdConservation Internship: Shelburne Museum, Shelbume, VT, June-September, 1992. · Pratt Institute, Brooklyn, NY, 30 hours of graduate work in Communications Design, 1973-74. · University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, Master of Arts in College Teaching, Focus: Fine Arts and Art History, 1972. · Duke University, Durham, NC, Bachelor of Arts, Major, Botany, Minor, Geology, 1965. CURRENT EMLOYMENT: · Museum Educator and Associate Interpreter, Monticello, Charlottesville, VA, 1/2001 to present.~. ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE: Qualifications meet or exceed the Secretary of the Interior's requirements for Architectural Historian as published in the Code of Federal Regulations 36 Part 61 National Register Nominations: Holden-Roberts Farm, Hillsborough, NC, in progress. John Evander Phillips Home, Cameron, NC, completed March 2000. City Place Historic District, Durham, NC, completed August 1999. Thomas Sheppard Farm, Stokes, NC, completed May 1999. Greenville, NC Tobacco Warehouse Historic District (Boundary Increase), Greenville, NC, completed March, 1999. Greenville, NC Tobacco Warehouse Historic District, Greenville, NC, completed March, 1997. Monumental Bronzes in Charlottesville, VA (MPD), Charlottesville, VA, completed April, 1996. Lewis and Clark Sculpture by Charles Keck, Charlottesville, VA, completed April, 1996. Stonewall Jackson Sculpture by Charles Keck, Charlottesville, VA, completed April, 1996. George Rogers Clark Sculpture by Robert Aitken, Charlottesville, VA, completed April, 1996. Robert E. Lee Sculpture by Leo Lentelli, Charlottesville, VA, completed April, 1996. Charlottesville and Albemarle County Courthouse, amended to include Confederate Memorial, Charlottesville, VA, completed September 1995. BETSY GOHDES-BATEN page 2 Old Chapel Hill Cemetery, as employee of Longleaf Historic Resources, Chapel Hill, NC, completed December 1993. Jacob Jackson Farm/Maple Hill, Orange Co., NC, completed October 1993. Burtch-Udall-Cowdrey-Boyd Farm, with Elsa Gilbertson and John Dumville, Vermont Historic Site, Hartford (Quechee), VT, completed March 1993. East Bethel Pony Truss Bridge, Bethel, VT, completed November 1992. Landmark Designations: Pattie Elizabeth Kearney House, Greenville, NC, completed October 1994. Alfred M. Moseley House, Greenville, NC, completed October 1994. Tax Credit Certifications: Evaluation of Significance for: Hicks and Toms Warehouses, Cooper Warehouse, Liggett and Myers Power House, Flowers Warehouse, Client: Blue Devil Ventures, Durham, NC, completed March 1, 1997. John Evander Phillips House, Client: Dianne Taylor-Webb, Southern Pines, NC, completed October 15, 1999. Evaluation of Significance and Description of Rehabilitation fort Gorman Warehouse Client: The Hammock Source, Greenville, NC, completed September 10, 1999. Request for Certification of Completed Rehabilitation for: American Tobacco Company Storage Warehouse #2 Client: The Hammock Source, Greenville, NC, completed September 10, 1999. Surveys of Cultural Resources: · Survey of Historic Structures on South Alston Avenue, City of Durham, NC, completed May 1995. Documented and photographed 22 late-nineteenth-and early-twentieth-century structures for the Durham City/County Architectural Inventory. · Survey of Historic Resources at Few's Ford, Orange Co., NC, completed April 1994. Documented and photographed 16 eighteenth-, nineteenth-, and early-twentieth-century structures and sites for the Eno River Association, Durham, NC. · Section 106 survey of Historic Resources in the Global TrausPark Impact Area, Lenoir Co., NC, completed July 1993. Assisted in documenting 62 properties as employee of Longleaf Historic Resources, for Kimley- Horn and Associates, Engineers, Raleigh, NC. · Survey of Historic Resources in Georgia Center, Vermont, Franklin Co., VT, completed February 1992. Team project documented 25 eighteenth-and nineteenth-century structures for a Kellogg Foundation-funded project and created innovative computer database to display survey. BETSY GOHDES-BATEN page 3 Architectural Conservation Studies: · Documentation and Conservation analysis of historic wallpapers from the Willmarth Homestead, Addison Co.,. VT, completed October 1992. · Conservation assessment of the Horseshoe Barn and the Horseshoe Barn Annex, and the effects of climate changes on the Horse-Drawn Vehicle collection, for the Shelburne Museum, Shelburne, VT, completed September 1992. · Conservation assessment of the Colchester Reef Lighthouse, for the Shelburne Museum, Shelburne, VT, completed June 1992. Professional Publications: · Bull Durham and Beyond II, Revision of a popular guide to the historic buildings and districts of Durham, NC, for the Historic Preservation Society of Durham, completed November 1994, in press. · "Neighborhood Profile: Duke Forest," with Clarence Gohdes, Overview of Duke University's early-twentieth-century faculty neighborhoods, published in Historic Preservation, Historic Preservation Society of Durham, Vol. 19, No. 1, Fall 1993. · The Old Santa FeAssociation-Guardian of Santa Fe's Future, Illustrated brochure describing the Old Santa Fe Association, published, Santa Fe, 1989. Additional Experience:: · Teaching Assistant, American History, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 1992-93. · Ceramist, Photographer, and Graphic Designer, Santa Fe, NM, 1980-90. · Photography Instructor, Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, VA, 1975-77. · Research Assistant, institute for Parapsychology, Durham, NC, 1968-69. · Secretary, Joan Baez, Folksinger, Carmel Valley, CA, 1966-68. Community Activities: · Member, Historic Preservation Commission of Durham, NC, 1993-96. · Member, Historic Design Review Board of Santa Fe, NM, 1987-90. · Officer and Board Member, Old Santa Fe Association, Santa Fe, NM, 1986-9 Computer Skills: Macintosh and PC Adobe Photoshop Adobe PageMaker Claris CAD Excel MacDraw Pro Filevision MacWrite Pro GIS-Arc/Info Microsoft Word SAS (statistics software) C. Henry Hinnant I11 President and Chief Executive Officer o{ i lue idge BOARD OF DIRECTORS Donald D. Sandridge. Chairman Thomas C. Lyncn Vice-Chairman James L, Brown Mrs. Robert Bruner Alvin ::t. Clements Thomas N. Connors Edward W. Davis Mrs. James L. Jessup Charles O. Meiburg Mrs. Car¥ N Moon. Jr. D. French Slaughter Mrs. Jay T Swett Frank E. Taylor. M.D. David P. Turner ~,Y/Sstminscer- Canterbury.'. of the Blue Ridge is firmly committed' co being an advo. cate/or the eIderN thrmt, gh providing programs and a high quality en- ~ ironmenc .for a minisrr'~ by, tcith and for the a~ng persons of the Charlottes ville / A~bemarte area. Our misszon is co provi& &e ~e~r- ship. resources and management necessar~ ~o en. sure a WCBR community tidN responsive co the comFtere and dx'- namic nee& of the a~ng of our area. April 2, 2001 The Hon. Charles S. Martin Board of Supervisors, Rivanna District County of Albemarle 200 Pineridge Lane Charlottesville, VA 22911 Dear Mr. Martin: As a cidzen and business leader in Albemarle County, Virginia, I continue to be sincerely interested in the appropriate style and traditions of architecture utilized in the County, particularly in the entrance corridors, and the planned and orderly growth of the County. For these reasons I am placing myself in application to serve on the Albemarle County Architectural Review Control Board. I would appreciate your review of my application, and I look forward to being of assistance to the County and to the Board of Supervisors in any way that I might serve. Sincerely, C. Henry Hinnant III CHH:kvc 250 PANTOPS MOUNTAIN ROAD. CHARLO'I-rESVILLE, VIRGINIA 22911 TELEPHONE (804) 980-9100 FAX (804) 980-9173 A continuing care retirement community related to the Presbyterian and Episcopal churches Mar 2? '01 16:55 P.O! .- I~o~-~~ Fax Note 7671 County q Applicant's Name Full Home Address OiEce of Boaniof Coumy Supev rs Ch~Jou:~a4~ VA 22~24596 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMlVlISSION/COMMITTEE (l'le e q,pe or l m) Board/Commissioa/Co · ' --- -z-~. ' vie~ Board . _ C- Henry Hinnant III 407 Key West Drive __ Cha.rlottesville, VA 22911 Magi~erial Div. H~ m w~ck your ~ome reddence ~ loc~r~ EmploTer ~estminster-Canterbury Bus~sAddre~ 250 Pantops Mountain Road Charlottesville, VA 22911 Oc~p~on/Tide President and CEO Rivanna Hc~ePheae 804/979-2061 Phone 804/980-9100 Date o£Employmenr June 1989 N/A Years Resident in Albemarle Counqz 12 Spouse's Name Previouz Residence Lvnchburg, VA Number 0£Ch~dreu- Education ~e~¢es and Gr,&ration Dates~ VA Teah. B.S. 1961 --. Medical College of ~irginia/VCU B.S. 1981 Memberd~..'p~ ~ Fr~te~=! Bu~ness. Church ~"d/orSodd Gr~ Albemarle County Rotary glub; ~erican ~'sociation of Homes & Services fo~ the Agl~: Christ Episcopal Church; Sons of the Revolution; Charlottesville/Albemarle Ch~ber of Commerce P~c, C{~c ~d C~a~r~ble O~ce ~or ~ A~es or [nr~(e~> Board of Directors: United Way; W~BR; ~CBR Foundation; ~erican Cancer Society (foyer)~ Accreditation evaluator for senio~ housing and services ~(s) for~[ngmS~onr~isB~C~;~{on/Con~a~;~c. To ensure that Albemarle County continues its growth in an orderly and olanned fashion~ which is conducive to functi~mal and appropriate architectural style and-tradition. ~e ~o~ p~ on ~s ~p~don ~ be ~1~ ~ ~e ~b~c ~n ~ April 2, 2001 Si~ac~ D~ Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County C. Henry Hirmant, III 407 Key X,Vesr Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 804/980-9100 President and CEO, Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge. Member, WCBR Foundation Board. President, WCBR Foundatior~ Evaluator, Contimfing Care AccJ:editafion Commission, ~AHSA. Fellow, American College of Health Care .A_Hrninistrators. Panelist, ¥-rrgirda Supreme Court Medical Malpractice Review Panel, 1992 to present. President, ~4~tnerican Cancer Society, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1997. Board of Directors, United Way of Central Virginia, 1998 to present. Director, Virginia Association of Non-Profit Homes for the Aging, 1982-84. Biographee, 251h edition of Marquis' Who's Who in Finance and Industr. g..., 1987 to present. Biographee, 21st edition of Marquis' Who's Who in the South and Southwest., 1988 to present. Director, Central Virginia Speech and Hearing Center, 1986-89. Chalrrn~n. Hospital Division, United Way of Central Virginia - 1984. Licensed Nursing Home Administrator, Commonwealth of Virginia. Member, various professional committees. )~nerican Association of Homes and Services for the Aging Regional Outstanding Service Award. 1994. Virginia Association of Non-Profit Homes for the Aging Innovation of the Year Awar~ 1994. Virgirtia Association of Non-Profit Homes for the Aging Meritorious Service Award, 1991. EDUC~kTION z'vtF. DIC~kL COl .I.RGE OF VIRGINIa., VCU Richmond, Virginia - 1981 B.S. degree, magna cum laude, Long-Term Health Care Management VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE Btacksburg, Virginia - 1961 . B.S. degree, Vocational Industrial Education with a major in Vocational/Occupational training PUBLICATIONS "HOSPICE APPROACH IN LONG TERM CARE", Contosnporarv ~a~dministrator, August 1981 "ADD REVENUE WITH HOlvlE LIF-~a~LTH C~E,", Contemporary Administrator, January 1982 "MONTHLY PERFOI~MANCE REPORTS: MANAGEMENTS FIN,hNCIxa,-L AND STATISTIC~~L TOOLS FOR CONTROL", The Jonrnal of Long Term Care Administratio.n,. Winter, 1983 "HOUSEHOLD CARE DESIGN FOR THE COGNITIVELY rMPAIRED RESIDENT", 1994. "CONTINUING CARE KETIR.EM~ENT CO/vI2¥fLrNITIES TODAY", to be submitted to Experience magazine, 1999. FACULTY "Facility Construction and Renovation Survival", Virginia Association of Non-Profit Homes for the Aging, 1994. "Marketing m Motion", American Associauon of Homes and Services for the Aging, 1995. "ByDesign: Diversifying CCRCs and the Future of Long-Term Care", Sherertz Franklin Crawford Shaffner, Inc., 1996. TECHNICAL TRAINING Long Term Care Administrative Internship at Westminster-Canterbury of Richmond, a life care facility of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches comaini-g 374 independent living units, 130 personal care units, and 133 intemaediate/skined nursing care beds, 1980. PROFESSIONAL AC"HVITIES PRECEPTOR, Administrator-in-Training Program, Commonwealth of V'trginiu, State Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators. FACULTY MEM]3ER, American College of Health Care Adminktmtors, 1983-85. EMPLOYMENT June 1989 to Present, President and Chief Executive Officer, Westminster-Canterbury of the Blue Ridge, a continuing care retirement community of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches. September 1981 to June 1989, Vice-President and Treasurer, Westminster-Canterbury of Lynchburg, a continuing care retirement commuality Of the Episcopal and Presbyterian churches containing 210 independent lixfing units and 120 PAL[intermecliate/skilled nursing beds. February 1980 to JUlY 1981, accounting assistant to the controner, Westbrook Hospital, a 198 bed private psychiatric hospital (Charter Medical Corp.) in Richmond, Virginia. lune 1971 to present, president and consultant, the Lancaster Corp., (engineering, construction, and health care). Vice- president and director, Tierra Fin, Inc. Director, the Stony Point SchooL Richmond and White Stone, Virginia. July 1968 to [une 1971, account executive, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc., Richmond, Virgima. June 1965 to IUlV 1968, college department representative for West Virginia and Virg4nia, Harper and Row, Publishers, New York. September 1961 to June 1965, high school mathematics teacher, Hopewell and Richmond, Virginia. Clarence Henry Hirmant, tli, FACHC~ hinnvira 04/20/2001 County 'O: Jane Kohr 17:12 FAX o£ Albemarle OOI/PANY: KOHR BR0I~RS INC, 4/3/01 12: 01 PAGE 2/2 RightFAX County of Albemarle [~002 The irrfom'mion prov'u~l on this application will be released to the public upon reque~. Sign,-=U D~¢ County of Albemarle Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) Magisterial District in which your home residence is located Employer ~ ~'~ ~ Phone Business Address { ' ~ '~' Occupation/Title ~V"C~'~ .~(~ / ~r{ V~C,O~.k Date ofEmploymen~}~. Ye~ Resident ~ ~be~le Co~W ~~ Spouse's N~e~ Pre~ous Residence~~{~ ~l~: ~-~ i ~ ~ Number . MemhersMps in Fraternal Bus,ess. Chumh md/or Sodfl Groups ~ Pubfic. Ci~c and Charitable Office and/or Other Acd~fies or Interes~~C~~J~ Reason(s) for ~shing to Se~e on ~s Board/Comssion/Com~ee ~~ The infoi:mafion provided on this a~pli~on yin b~ re/eased Signature to the public upon request. Return to: Clerk. Board of County Supervisors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville. VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 296-5800 Candace M.P. Smith, AIA 948 Tilman Road charlottesville, Virginia 22901 23 April 2001 Office of Board of County Supervisors 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: Application to serve on the Architectural Review Board To Whom It May Concern: I have an ongoing interest in the positive development and growth of the Cotmty. I am particularly concerned with the physical appearance of our buildings and the context in which they are built, including the landscape, adjacent buildings, and future development. I believe I can contribute an aesthetic perspective to the architectural review board's actions while fairly and objectively considering the practical requirements of applicants. In my experience of establishing Smith Garrett Architects (which has grown from a 2-woman firm to a 15-person fu-m over the last 10 years) and in the course of meeting the expectations of clients and staff, I believe I have honed my skills to listen, evaluate, offer suggestions and foster consensus, In addition, my .experience as president of the Charlottesville AIA section and my involvement in the chapter since has provided me leadership oppommities and .could facilitate communication with many local architects (and builders) who might come before the board. Finally my prior training and collaboration with Floyd Johnson and Thomas Craven (of Johnson, Craven & Gibson) has provided me with a solid foundation for appreciating classical detailing while also -allowing me to develop a keen sense of appropriate proportion and scale. I believe this training, along with my years of practice., will be an asset to my evaluation of ARB issues. Board of Supervisors April 23, 2OO 1 Page Two I am acquainted with Bethany Puopolo who has served on the review board' and have discussed the time demands of this position. My firm is open to my attending the board meetings as required and I believe I can serve the County well with both my abilities and my deal/cation. I welcome the opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, Candace M.P. Smith, AIA Rpr 2~ O! 09:~5a p.2 CANDACE M. P. SMITH, AIA EDUCATION REGISTRATION PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE HONORS AND AWARDS TRAVEL Master of Architecture University of Virginia Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and History University of Virginia: Graduated Cum Laude Virginia; Member AIA Smith Garrett Architects, P.C. Principal Projects include institutional and residential work throughout Virginia, with an emphasis on traditional architecture. Johnson, Craven & Gibson, Inc. Charlottesville, Virginia Project Architect Responsible for client contact, construction documents, and construction administmtion for residential and commercial work. National Legal Research Group Charlottesville, Virginia Office Manager Managed support staff for firm of over forty attorneys. Historical archeological fieldwork included work with Shenandoah National Park, Fort Chiswe[l, George Washington's Birthplace (summers during college) Guest Speaker at Building Virginia Seminar President Charlottesville/Albemarle Section of the AIA James River Chapter Guest lecturer at University of Virginia School of Architecture Lived abroad as a child in Cambodia, Uganda. and Rhodesia. Travel in Europe during Graduate School included stays in England and 1987 1977 1990- present t984- 1990 1977- 1983 i974- 1977 1995 1995 ~SIDENTIAL Mr. & Mrs. David & Susan Dodge Scottsville, Virginia REFERENCES FOR SELECTED WORK (804) 286-91(10 Dr. & Mrs. Patrick and Ann Marie Dolan Springfield, Virginia (703) 750-1238 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Gillions Hemdon, Virginia --"~ Mr. & Mrs. A. P. Janssen Charlottesville, Virgiaia q~Ms. Patricia Kluge Albemarle County, Virginia ~e Drs. Chris & Cathy Kramer Albemarle County, Virginia "'~ Mr. & Mrs. Graham and Rachel Lilly Lynnwood, Virginia ,,~ Mr. Dave Matthews Albemarle Comw, Virginia ~Mr. James B. Murray, Jr. Charlottesville, Virginia Mr. & Mrs. James and Kay Ogg Charlottesville, Virginia Mrs. George Pahner Albemarle County, Virginia Mr. & Mrs. Walter and Jm~e Ralls Free Union, Virginia (3011 325-0618 (804) 295-4227 (804) 293-2745 (540) 249-4006 (804) 9714080 (804) 975-0 t23 (804) 295-5884 (804) 973-9170 T E: p.3 CTS 8(I4-2 95-8113 Mr. & Mrs. Champe & Jane Ransom Albemarle County, Virginia Mr. & Mrs. William Rinehart III Charlottesville, Virginia Mr. & Mrs. Don Showalter Harrisonburg, Virginia Mr. & Mrs. Gabriel Silverman Batesville, Virginia Mrs. Cynthia Tremblay Greenwood, Virginia Mr. & Mrs. Court and Tammye Van Clicf Keene, Virginia Mr. Phil Wendel Figure Eight lsland, North Carolina Mr. & Mrs. T. K. Woods, Jr. Albemarle County, Virginia HISTORIC PRESERVATION/RENOVATION Arrowhead Farm Albemarle County, Virginia Bogota Farm Lynwood, Virginia .-.~ Boxwood Lane Farm Batesville, Virginia Casa Maria Greenwood, Virginia Jefferson Mill Keene, Virginia Kenwood Office Renovation Albemarle County, Virginia Leeton Hill Warrenton, Virginia Mclntire Library Charlottesville. Virginia (804) 973-6352 (804) 29_3-5316 (540) 896-9412 (804) (804) 456-6450 (804) 286-7059 (910) 686-210! (804) 974-9890 (804) 977-1925 Mr. & Mrs. T.K. Woods. J r. (804) 97%I 925 Ms. Rachel Lilly (540) 249-4006 Mr. & Mrs. Gabe Silverl,..~an (804) 823-5235 Mrs. Cynthia Tremblav (804) 456-6450 Mr. Dave Matthews Mr. Michael Merriam (804) 971-7705 Ms. Lora Jenkins (540) 364-i 364 Ms. Melinda Frierson (804) 296-1492 Rpr 2~ O! Monticello Oift Shop Albemarle County, Virginia Mount Ida Charlottesville, Virginia St. Luke's Chapel, Episcopal Albemarle County, Virginia St. Luke's Episcopal Church Powhatan, Virginia University of Virginia Rotunda Northeast Wing Renovation Madison Hall Offices Renovation West Range Stone Walls INTERIOR DESIGN Lakelm~d Tours, Inc. Charlottesville, Virginia Mr. & Mrs. Jon Sund Mechanicsville, Virginia Mr. Phil Wendel Charlottesville, Virginia Ms. Terri Morgoglione Today's Caf6 at Maryland Inn Laurel, Maryland University of Virginia Rotunda Northeast Wing Renovation Gilmer Hall Classroom Renovation Wilson Hall Classroom Renovation Mr, Michael Men'iam (804) 971-7705 Mr. James B. Murray, .h'. (804) 9714080 Mr. John V. Berberich iii (804) 296-6653 Mr. O.H. Harriss (804) 378-3577 Mr, Gcorge 8outhwcl} (804) 982-5856 Mr, Mm-ray Howard (804) 982-5829 Ms. Terri Morgogtione (804) 982-8600 ('804) 7~0-_747 (804) 296-2530 (804) 296-9100 Mr. Brian Gillions (240) 882-3840 Mr. George Southwclt (804) 982-5856 Sent By: TRA[N&SPENCERARCH; 8042955122; Apr'-20-01 11 Page 1/1 APPLICATIO~ Bo~zd/Cowmis~o~/Corhmk~, A.~Mtcctun Applicant's Name M. *rk Train Full I lomc Addrcs.~ 705 lVlechums West Driw Magistefiil Di.~ct M wt~ch you home l~.mployer Train ~ Spea~.Atchitect~ Bu~ix:ea~ Adckes~ 107 $~xmd Stre~ SE CI~ Occupation/Tide Archi~ Yv~ Re,Meat in Albemarle ComxLx 13 P~vious Kesidence Cr~r~m~ne, Virginia (7 £dueation fDe~ees and G~l~on Da~ Yale Uni~i~ MA~b Meml~tshi? in Fraternal Bud~ess. Church Public: Civic and Charim$le ()f'fic¢ and/or Reason(s3 for Wi,hin= to Serve on this I~.ettttll [o: Clerk,!Board of Coumy 401 M~:lnti~ Road Chsrl0ttesviile, VA 22901 FAX: (804) 29~,,R800 County of Al.bemarle Office of 401 McImire ~ad Cha2lotter~ilk, VA [ TO SERVE ON BOAI~ (P1¢~¢ typ. o, Rm'icw Board ?.2902-4596 g43 ~/COMMIS$ION/COMMITTEE print.) CharlctReanall~, Vi2gima 22~ 13 Home Phoae Rb4.971.4957 located Samuel M£11~ Phone 804.293.2965 · lottmvillo, Virldaia ~902 D~L~e of gmpk~lrment ttl/1990 Spouse's Name CaXtrg Smith Train Number (:,f C~dren 2 (A~it~) 1~J75 will be relep~qed to thc pubiS, upetrisoz$ County of Albemarle ·: .............................. 401 McInt'.a~.._R. 9_ad_ "' - · Charlottesville, VA 2290245~(;- · ', .: ......... (804) 296-5843 APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE (Please type or print.) FullHomeAddress,5{5~5) /~..0~ 40/7_//0 Dr&e, C~.r/o#rsu;/l¢ ,, I/4. 775'621 Magisterial District in whichyour home residence is located ...Jo~r,~ Occupation/Title Years Resident inAlbemarle County P~iousResidence :-.'7 _ .......... ~- ~ / Public, Civic ~d C~fitable Office ~d/or ~herA~ivities or Intere~s Reason(s) for Wishing to Serve on this Board/Commission/Commktee ~m/ o.r~/Teodc, ee, The information pm~ided on this application will be released to the public upon request. Remm to.' Clerk, Board of County SUlX~isors Albemarle County 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596 FAX: (804) 2%-5800 From: Subject:. Date: Members, Board of Supervisors ~/ ~ F_lla Washington Carey, CMC, ~ Reading lJst for May 2, 200 / April 27, 2001 March 14, 200 t March 2 I, 200 I /ewc Ms. Thomas Mr. P~owerman COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Work Session on the Proposed Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Continuation of Work Session on the Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment as Proposed by the Planning Commission. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Cilimberg, Ms. Catlin, Echols AGENDA DATE: May 2, 200'1 ACTION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATrACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY .'~~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At its April 4, 2001, meeting, the Board of Supervisors conducted a work session to review and discuss the proposed Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The Board discussed and identified issues relating to Neighborhood Model principles '1 - 5 and 8, and determined .that the remaining material would be reviewed at a subsequent work session. DISCUSSION: The Board will continue with its work session, which wlill be conducted in a facilitated discussion format focusing on the Points of Discussion relevant to each topic, l~he associated policy/regulatory and investment impacts associated with those points, and possible action options. Materials pertinent to the upcoming work session were distributed as an attachment to the Executive Summary for the April 4 work session - specifically worksheets for the remaining Neighborhood Model principles (6, 7 and 9 - 12) as well as for sections on master plans, staffing issues and philosophy. The worksheets include DISC Committee comments from Volume 2 of the final report titled "Recommendations: Policy and Regulatory Changes" and also summarize staff comments which were generated during an internal review of the Model. Staff will be in attendance during the work session to answer questions and provide additional details as appropriate. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board conduct the work session, and finish its review of the proposed amendment. The public hearing on the Neighborhood Model Comprehensive Plan amendment has been scheduled for May 16th at the direction of Board Chairman, Sally Thomas. 01.093 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Worksession on the Neighborhood Model #6 Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale Point of Discussion The zoning ordinance needs to address the "human scale" aspects of new development. Current Policy/Regulations Current zoning requirements are for setbacks that promote a more "suburban" than "urban" form of development. Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource Requirement · Modify zoning ordinance to reduce Action Options 'this list is not exhaustive) setbacks, change height regulations, require parking to the side and rear of buildings, deal with spatial enclosure, and add trees to the streetscape and parking areas. Stafftime is required to make ordinance changes and convey the new information to the development community. · Modify zoning regulations to be in keeping with minimum building code requirements. · Modify zoning regulations to allow for lesser setbacks and zero lot line "by- fight". Modify other zoning requirements to relate to building heights, parking location, spatial enclosure, and street trees. · Develop "overlay" districts after master plans are completed to reflect the "human scale" elements above for each Development Area. · Leave regulations as they are currently. (not recommended) 11 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Worksession on the Neighborhood Model #7 Relegated Parking Point of Discussion Longstanding needs for diminishing the prominence of parking on sites have been identified. Current Policy/Regulations · Parking regulations support a suburban development style and require All parking to be off-street More parking than what is reasonably required for many uses · Planning Commission approval for all cooperative and shared parking · No "by-fight" parking lot uses · The majority of parking lots are in front of buildings rather than to the side or behind buildings. Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource Requirement · Change parking requirements in zoning ordinance to result in: · Standalone parking lots or garages · Increased distances from which a use and its associated parking can be provided by-right · Reduce parking requirements to coincide with common usage rather than peak usage · Increase opportunities for shared parking arrangements and allow them by-right · Provide reductions in parking requirements where employers use Transportation Demand Management · Provide reductions on parking requirements where public transit is available · Promote the location of parking areas behind, underneath, and to the sides of buildings · Locate residential parking behind facades or in alleys · Allow non-asphalt for required parking Ordinance changes involve staff time Action Options this list is not exhaustive) · Change the parking requirements in the zoning ordinance to result in changes in all items in column to the left. · Prioritize parking changes and develop ordinance amendments on the least difficult items at first. · Hire a consultant to develop changes to parking regulations. · Leave current policy regarding County ownership of parking areas intact. · The County acquires land for development of public parking lots or garages. 12 and training If the County becomes involved in providing public parking lots, acquisition, ownership, and maintenance will involve costs. 13 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Worksession on the Neighborhood Model #9 Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability with Dignity Point of Discussion Current Policy/Regulations The County would need to be more proactive in assuring that affordable housing in the Development Areas is provided. Although the County would not be expected to build affordable housing, it may need to take initiatives to ensure the prowsion of affordable housing. The County's Housing Department assists low-to-moderate income persons in finding affordable housing in the County and the City. County policy should promote the provision of affordable housing in the Development Areas rather than in the Rural Areas. · County policy should promote the provision of affordable housing as a part of neighborhoods rather than being built in "enclaves". Affordable Not-for-profit groups (such as Habitat for Humanity) look for affordable land on which to provide housing. At present much of the affordable land is in the Rural Areas. No County policy exists concermng location of affordable housing or its appearance. Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource Requirement · Staff would assist in the Master Planning process to determine existing locations of affordable housing. The Master Plan committee would suggest places where a true mix of housing does not exist in each Developmem Area. · The Housing Department would staff the Housing Committee to recommend changes in housing policy for the County. · Any changes needed to the Zoning Ordinance would require staff time. The Housing Department would assist the Housing Committee in developing changes in housing policy for the County. Action Options 'this list is not exhaustive) · Create incentives for suppliers of affordable housing such as fee waivers, density bonuses, or fast-tracking. · County government or non-profit could offer public assistance to allow participation in the market · Develop a mandatory affordable housing ordinance. · Leave current policy and practices as they are. (not recommended) The Housing Department would assist the Housing Committee to recommend changes in housing policy for the County. · Work with non-profit groups to promote the Development Areas as the appropriate locations for low-to moderate income housing production. · Develop incentives for affordable housing production in the Development Areas. · Leave current policy and practices as they are. (not recommended) · Work with non-profit groups and the development community to promote ways to blend affordable units into proposed housing developments in t4 housing should look like other housing and blend into neighborhoods. neighborhoods. · Leave current policy and practices as they are. (not recommended) 15 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Worksession on the Neighborhood Model #10 Redevelopment Point of Discussion Most redevelopment activity will take place by the private sector. County investment may be needed to help spur redevelopment in some cases. Current Policy/Regulations At present, redevelopment activity lies with the private sector. Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource Requirement · Maintain firm boundaries for Development Areas to encourage redevelopment rather than Development Area boundary expansions. · Additional funding could be necessary to construct and maintain infrastructure improvements m support desired redevelopment. IAction Options (this list is not exhaustive) · County staff creates a comprehensive redevelopment strategy. · Opportunities for redevelopment are identified during the Master Plan process. · County economic development efforts are increased to facilitate redevelopment. · Responsibility for redevelopment will remain with the private sector. · County investment in infrastructure may be necessary to support desired redevelopment. · Investigate resources to support redevelopment through low .interest loans or state grants. · Require private sector to assume some level of responsibility for providing infrastructure. · Investigate incentives including forms of taxation i.e. tax deferrals for rehabilitation in the Development Areas 16 Regulatory changes will be needed to make redevelopment easier. .Zoning regulations do not address redevelopment differently than new development. Zoning ordinance changes may be necessary to support redevelopment. Analysis of the needs for and recommendations will take staff time *. Review appropriate regulations and revise to accommodate redevelopment goals ofinfill and mixed use. · Permit redevelopment on non- conforming sites without requiring total conformity with zoning ordinance. · No expansions to the Development Areas boundaries while opportunities for redevelopment are still available. 17 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Worksession on the Neighborhood Model #11 Site Planning that Respects Terrain Point of Discussion The zoning regulations for disturbance of critical slopes relate more to mini area goals than to Development Area goals. Current Policy/Regulations · Review of disturbance of slopes in excess of 25% grade relates to the effect on the drinking water supply; rapid and/or large scale movement of soil and rock; excessive stormwater mn-off; siltation of natural and manmade bodies of water; loss of aesthetic resource; and the potential of sepuc system failure. · Current regulations allow for the creation of steeper slopes than those being disturbed. · Current regulations do not address site grading and resulting slope safety, appearance, and long term maintenance needs of homeowners and other property owners · Community Facilities Plan for schools requires use of protypical school for all terrain. Earthwork costs can be expensive. Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource Requirement Change the steep slopes regulations to · Separate the Rural Area needs from the Development Area needs. · Reflect the site grading needs for the Development Areas for slopes that are stable, non-erosive, safe, attractive, and easily vegetated. · Ensure the preservation of systems of critical slopes and streams shown on the County's Open Space Plan or future Development Area Master Plans. · Encourage the use of architectural solutions to.building on steep slopes in order to make better use of sloping land in the Development Areas · Ensure that retaining walls, when used, are appropriately scaled, benched when necessary, and considered for long-term stability. · Ensure that fire safety and emergency access needs are included in building construction on steep terrain. New public facilities would be expected to be designed with the land Action Options (this list is not exhaustive) · Modify the zoning ordinance to reflect any or all of the items to the left. · Place site grading regulations in the Design Manual. · Leave current regulations/practices as they are. (not recommended) rather than with a prototype facility if grades do not easily support the prototype. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Worksession on the Neighborhood Model # 12 Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas Point of Discussion Current PolicyfRegulations The Neighborhood Model includes suggested edge treatments. In most instances, development in the Development Areas should extend to the boundary with the Rural Area. No clear policy exists with regard to the boundary with the Rural Area. In rezonings and special use permits, staff attempts to address ways to deal with the boundary. Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource Requirement Master Planning process should establish the desired features of the boundary between the Development and Rural Area. Identify appropriate entity to protect/maintain buffered edges. Action Options this list is not exhaustive) · Allow development community to address edge treatments as they prefer in by-right developments. · Consider proposed edge treatments in rezonings and special use permits where the property abuts a rural area or city boundary. Include edge treatments in Master Plans for the Development Areas. 18 rather than with a prototype facility if grades do not easily support the prototype. Point of Discussion Master Plans will be needed for each of the Development Areas. Development will involve property owners, residents, staff, Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors members. Master plans will identify the majority of the investments needs of the County. Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Worksession on the Neighborhood Model Master Plans Current Policy/Regulations Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource Requirement The Pantops Neighborhood and the Crozet Community have been "planned" in past years. The County's goal has been to provide individual plans for each Development Area. The Hollymead community was slated to be the next Development Area for a Master Plan before the DISC process began. Master Plans for the Development Areas will be needed. At least 7 Master Plans are anticipated, if the urban neighborhoods are paired for study. If too much time is taken in the preparation of the Master Plans, greenfield development will be unlikely and redevelopment of the Development Areas or expansion will be the focus. Action Options this list is not exhaustive) Continue to master plan the Development Areas at the pre- Neighborhood Model rate (one every 2-3 years) (not recommended) · Work with the community on one Master Plan as a pilot. Then continue at a rate of 2 per year. This option will necessitate providing the necessary resources in staff and consultants. · Undertake all Master Plans immediately. This option will necessitate more staff and consultants over a shorter period of time. · In the absence of Master Plans, encourage developers to involve citizens in the front end of planning for land development projects. · Continue to rely on the Comprehensive Plan for County investment needs in the 5 Year CIP. As Master Plans are completed, fund Master Plan improvements after already identified CIP improvements have been completed. · Re-prioritize capital improvements projects with existing CIP after each Master Plan is completed. Staff expertise and involvement will be required to guide the Master Plan process. The Drainage Area Master Plans are being set up to provide base mapping of environmental resources to expedite the process. The Pantops Neighborhood Plan and Crozet Community Study identify needed capital improvements in these Development Areas. Other capital improvement needs are identified in the Comprehensive Plan and Community Facilities Plan. · Master plans will play a significant role in developing and prioritizing the county's capital improvement needs, with an emphasis on concurrence between construction of public facilities and elements of neighborhood plans. · Specific fiscal impacts and resource requirements will be determined at the Master Planning level. 19 Creation of master plans will raise citizen expectations for the commitment of resources to implement plan elements. The County funds improvements based on identified elements in existing plans. Citizen expectations are high for needed improvements to schools and roads in the Development Areas. · Future locations of public facilities will be determined through the Master Plan process. · A plan for prioritization of funding of capital improvements related to Master Plans will be needed. · The County's capital/infrastructure investment needs for each Development Area will be determined with each Master Plan. · A plan for funding investments will be needed. · The County will need to develop a clear shared understanding of resource availability and allocation and process for funding with the public. · Give improvements in Master Plans top priority over existing CIP projects. · Fund all existing capital improvements identified in the CIP during the next CIP cycle (NOT RECOMMENDED) · Adopt an "official map" for transportation improvements and have developers provide their share of these improvements as projects are constructed. · Recommended plan elements are simply programmed into the County budget and CIP to be funded as resources allow, without any further resource commitments. (not recommended) · Each Master plan includes an approved development and funding plan for the provision of its recommendations under a realistic schedule reflecting resource commitments. Recommended plan elements are given increased resource commitments through a combination of public and private resources, including innovative funding solutions identified from other communities. 20 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Worksession on the Neighborhood Model Staffing to Implement Ordinance Changes Point of Discussion The extent to which additional staff may be needed is dependent on the level of regulatory change and maintenance responsibilities the County may take on. Current Policy/Regulations · Staff currently works on zoning ordinance and subdivision amendments on an as-needed basis. At present, a Zoning Text Amendment Team meets bi-weekly to develop zoning ordinance amendments to meet current development needs. Included in this work are "housekeeping" items, changes to parking regulations, changes to steep slopes regulations, and changes to home occupations. · Staff works with ACSA and VDOT on individual development projects to help facilitate conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Minimal sidewalk maintenance at the County level takes place; in most instances VDOT or Homeowners' Associations are responsible to maintain sidewalks and pedestrian paths. · Current staffing needs in the development departments are dealt with annually through the budget process. · An economy-of-scale exists in maintenance of recreational fields at Policy or Regulatory Change/Resource Requirement · Regulatory changes will continue to require staff time. More expedited ordinance amendments mean additional staff time. · New regulatory requirements will result in the need for additional staff training as well as presentations and workshops to the development community. · Inspections for new amenities will increase staff time. · Working with VDOT and ACSA up- front to change policies and requirements will require staff time. It should result in less time spent on a proj ect-by-proj ect basis. · If the County is to maintain more sidewalks, additional expenditures will be needed for maintenance crews. If the County relies on VDOT or Homeowners' Associations to maintain sidewalks and pedestrian paths, no change in maintenance expenses is anticipated. · A separation of recreational playing fields from school sites may result in additional maintenance costs for the Action Options (this list is not exhaustive) · Leave current regulations in place. · Continue to develop changes for zoning and subdivision ordinances at current rate. · Hire a consultant to help expedite the writing of the ordinance amendments. · Hire a consultant to help make changes with VDOT. · Direct ACSA to find ways to encourage and allow street trees in the easements. · Hire additional staff in the County Attorney's office to help write the ordinance amendments. · If additional maintenance is necessary, contract for maintenance work. · If additional maintenance is necessary, hire additional crews. 21 school sites. Private roads in the Development Areas are the exception rather than the rule and are privately maintained. Staff rarely receives complaints with maintenance issues on the few private roads that exist in the Development Areas. · If more use of private roads in the Development Areas is to take place, the County will likely have to perform more private road inspections. · If maintenance of private roads becomes a major problem, the County may have to take over maintenance of private roads. · If negotiations with VDOT are not successful to result in "neighborhood friendly" streets, the County may decide to develop new road standards and create a public works department for maintenance. 22 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Worksession on the Neighborhood Model Philosophy - "The Way" or "One Way" Point of Discussion Current Policy/Regulations It is recognized that all of the 12 principles will not be achievable on each site for new development. The principles relating to pedestrian orientation, neighborhood friendly streets and paths, intemormected streets and transportation networks, and site planning that respects terrain would be expected in all new developments. Adherence to these principals is needed to accommodate the density proposed by the Land Use Plan and make liveable areas. * In legislative decisions, planning staff looks for conformity with as many Land Use Plan goals as possible. · The subdivision and zoning ordinances fail to support many existing Land Use Plan goals. · Stafftries to ensure that each of these items is incorporated into rezonings and special use permits in accordance with current Land Use Plan. · Provision of sidewalks and paths, neighborhood friendly streets and paths, interconnections, and site planning that respects terrain is optional in by-right developments. Frequently, these items are not provided. Policy or Regulatory Chan ge/Resource Requirement · Staffwill assess rezoning and special use permit requests with as many of the 12 principles as possible. · Changes to subdivision and zoning ordinances are needed to support existing Land Use goals as well as Neighborhood Model goals. Development or ordinance amendments takes time. Modify the zoning and subdivision ordinances to require curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, parks and open space, and good site grading as the standard for all new developments. Action Options this list is not exhaustive) · Continue current policy on legislative decisions to look for conformity with as many Land Use Plan goals as possible. · Leave current zoning and subdivision ordinances in place for by-right development. (not recommended) · Make zoning and subdivision ordinance changes to reflect goals of Neighborhood Model. · Continue current policy on legislative decisions to ensure pedestrian orientation, neighborhood friendly streets and paths, interconnected streets and transportation networks, and site planning that respects terrain · Leave current zoning and subdivision ordinances in place for by-right development and allow improvements at the developer's option. (not recommended) · Have staff prepare zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments to support the goals of the Neighborhood Model. · Have a consultant prepare zoning and subdivision ordinance amendments to 23 The principles relating to a mixture of uses, a variety of housing types, neighborhood centers, buildings and spaces of human scale, and redevelopment would be provided where it makes sense in the larger context of the general area. These items are considered on a minimal basis with rezonings and special use permits. Information is placed in the staff reports on conformity with the Neighborhood Model; however, recommendations a~e not made in reference to the Neighborhood Model goals at this time. Staffwill continue to include this analysis in rezonings and special use permits. Recommendations for approval will be based on conformity with the Neighborhood Model. Master planning is expected to provide the "big picture" needs for mixture of uses, affordable housing, design, redevelopment needs, and recommendations on zoning ordinance changes to promote higher density. Public investment to support the "big picture" needs would be determined after the Master Plans are completed. support the goals of the Neighborhood Model. · Staffcontinues to include this analysis in rezonings and special use permits with recommendations for approval based on conformity with the Neighborhood Model. Staff reviews "big picture" issues in rezonings and special use permits and works with developer and community to begin Master Planning where Master Plans have not be~n developed. 24 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Quarterly Financial Report SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Presentation of Year to Date Quarterly Financial Report for Nine Months Ended March 31st STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden, Walters, Mss. White, Spencer AGENDA DATE: May 2, 2001 ACTION CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY.'~~ ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: X BACKGROUND: The attached quarterly financial report provides information on the county's general fund and the fund balance as of March 31,2001. Also included is a bar-chart-based report that compares this year's revenue and expenditure data with data from the previous year. DISCUSSION: ($ in millions) A. Attachment A: General Fund Quarterly Financial Report: 1. Revenues: Overall, revenues are still showing growth over last year, which reflect a stable local economy. While sales tax, bus'ness license revenues, and other local tax revenues continue to show decreases since the initial revenue estimates, projected real estate tax revenue has increased. State revenues continue to be estimated to increase by $3.856 million, while local personal property tax revenue has decreased by $3.400 million. This is primarily due to the reporting changes associated with the personal property tax relief program. Federal revenue estimates have decreased by $0.214 million during this current fiscal year. This projected decrease remains unchanged since the last quarter report. Current revenue projections of $121.796 million reflect a $2,604 million (2.2%) increase in the revenue projection over what the County appropriated on July 1,2000. When anticipated revenues are combined with the budgeted fund balance and use of other funds, the total estimated resources in the current fiscal year are $130.035 million. Expenditures: Overall, expenditures are within appropriate levels (75%) for the first three quarters of the year: · Total expenditures are 72.8% of current bu~tget. · Since the second quarteriy report, additional appropriations of $0.030 million have been approved by the Board for a revised total of $127,513 million. AGENDA TITLE: Quarterly Financial Report May 2, 2001 Page 2 3. Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditures: This report indicates there will be a total of $2.522 million in unobligated revenues on hand by the end of this current fiscal year (June 30,2001) based on staff estimates as of March 31, 2001. However $2.068 million of the FY01 projected revenues were approved during budget work sessions for FY 02 general government initiatives and the FY 02 transfer to the school division. See the Fund Balance Report for details. (Attachment C) If projected revenues are realized, $0.677 million in "Projected Unobligated Funds" could be available at the end of the current fiscal year for contingencies, capital projects or other one-time needs. Projected expenditures have not been revised at this time, although end-of-the-year savings have historically been approximately $0.500 million plus. These savings, if realized, could be added to net revenues for total "Projected Unobligated Funds" of $1.2 million. Attachment B: Annual Budget Comparison Report as of December 3'1, 2000 This bar-chart-based report tracks changes in revenue and expenditure changes over time: Revenues: · Revenues from personal property tax, sales tax, other local taxes, and federal revenues are anticipated to decrease from last year. Revenues from real estate taxes, state revenues, meals taxes, and utility taxes and other local revenues are anticipated to increase over amounts received last year. · No revenue growth is anticipated in business licenses this year. Expenditures: This report continues to reflect those changes resulting from reappropdations approved by the Board in November 2000. The most significant expenditure increase based on approved appropriations to date are the administration, public safety, public works and the community development areas. Attachment C: Fund Balance Report This report indicates that the County: Has an audited fund balance of $20.499 million; 2. Appropriated $0.830 million [,n approved projects in the FY01 Adopted Budget; Appropriated an additional $7.776 million for projects between July1 and March 31, 2001. These projects were ones not completed by 7/1/00, projects approved during the budget process, and new capital and operating projects approved by the Board; Has proposed a total of $2.068 million be committed for FY02 general government initiatives and to be transferred to the school division. Has committed to maintain a minimum fund balance of $12.5 million for cash liquidity purposes. The $12.5 million balance remains within the County's financial policy of maintaining a fund balance "equal to no less than 8% of the County's General Fund, plus School Fund;" Due to future funding commitments for the FY 02 budget, the current year net fund balance shown as of 03/31/00 is a negative $1.845 million However, due to projected year-end FY 01 revenues of $2.522 million, "Projected Unobligated Funds" are estimated to be $0.677 million as of July 1,01. 2 AGEN DA TITLE: Quarterly Financial Report May 2, 2001 Page 2 Fiscal Impact Discussion 1. Current Year Revenue Estimates are based on FY00 actual revenue collections, as well as any trend indicators gleaned from the third quarter collections. There is a perception at the federal level that the national economy seems to be slowing down as evidenced by recent cuts in interest rates by the Federal Reserve. This slow down may affect the state and localities during the course of the next fiscal year. Because of the possibility of a changing economic climate, higher construction costs than anticipated, general assembly deliberations regarding the state budget, and other variables, the County's Projected Unobligated Funds of $0.677 million should always be viewed as subject to change as the last quarter of the fiscal year unfolds. RECOMM EN DATION: Staff recommends that the Board accepts the third quarter report for FY 00/01. 01.097 Albemarle County General Fund Quarterly Financial Report Year-to-Date (YTD) For Nine Months Ended March 31st ($ in millions) Attachment A Revenues Real Estate Taxes Personal Property Taxes Sales Taxes Business Licenses Utility Tax Meals Tax Other Local Taxes Other Local Revenue State Revenue Federal Revenue Total Revenues Use of FY99/00 Fund Balance Use of Other Funds Total Prior Year - FY 99100 Full Year 03/31t00 YTD YTD Actual as Actual Actual % of Full Year $43,738 $21.489 49.1% 15.990 9.308 58,2% 9.462 6.440 68,1% 5.726 2,413 42.1% 5.946 3.747 63.0% 3.367 2.470 73.4% 7,832 4,059 51.8% 4.905 2.965 60,4% 12.945 7.093 54.8% 2.927 1.847 63.1% 112.837 61.830 54.8% 0,000 0.000 0.235 0.217 92.5% $t13,072 $62,046 54.9% Current Year - FY 00/01 07/01/00 03/31/01YTD YTD Actualas Appropriated (1) Actual %ofFutt Year $47,676 $23.257 48.8% 16.596 8,447 50.9% 9.750 6.560 67.3% 5,954 2.763 464% 5,867 3.945 67.2% 3,325 2.687 80.8% 8.024 4.047 50.4% 4,751 3~271 68.9% 13.963 9.252 66.3% 3.286 2.097 63.8% 119.192 66.326 55.6% 0,830 0.000 0.0% 0.468 0,322 68.7% $t20.491 $66.648 55.3% Projected Projected Revised Revenue Revenue Variance as % of Estimate (_2) Variance Appropriate__d_ $48.809 $1.132 13,195 (3,400) 9,600 (0. I50) 5,952 (0.003) 6,468 0.601 3,575 0~250 7.926 (0,098) 5,382 0.631 17,819 3,856 3.071 2.604 7.776 6.946 0,462 $9,54~4 Expenditu,r~ Prior Year - FY 99100 Full Year 03/31/00 YTD YTD Actual as Actual Actual % of Full Year Administration Judicial Public Safety Public Works Human Development Parks, Rec & Culture Community Development Subtotal Operations $6.184 $4.700 76.0% 2.533 1.856 73.3% 12.294 8.707 70.8% 2,538 2.036 80.2% 8.719 5,683 65.2% 4.015 2.403 59.8% 2,994 2.604 87.0% 39.278 27,990 71,3% Transfer to School Division NomDept (revenue share; reserves; refunds) Subtotal 51.686 36.969 71.5% 5,881 5.877 99.9%i 96,845 70.836 73.1% 9.828 78.9% $80,66_____~4 73.8% Transfers to Capital Fund and Debt Service 12,461 Total Expenditures $109.306 (1) July 1,2000 Appropriated General Fund FY00101 Budget. (2) Finance Department Revised Revenue Estimate as of March 31,2001 (3) Revised Expenditure Appropriations as of March 31, 2001, Current Year - FY 07/01/00 03/31/01YTD YTD Actualas ApprQpriated (1) Actual %ofFutlYear $6.512 $4,712 72.4% 2.729 1.990 72.9% 13~890 10.449 75.2% 2.719 2~330 85.7%1 9.604 6~062 63.1% 4,307 2,568 59.6% 3.378 2.780 82~3% 43.140 30.891 71,6% 56.674 37.782 66.7% 6~662 6.197 93,0% 106.476 74.870 70.3% 14.015 12~866 91.8% $120.491 $87.73____~6 00/01 Revised Pr~ected Expenditure Expenditure Appropriations (3) Variance $6,995 $0.483 2.799 0.070 14~358 0.468 3.030 0,310 9,708 0,104 4.345 0.038 4,210 0.832 45,446 2,306 56.674 0.000 6.356 108,476 2,000 19.037 5.023 $7.02~2 $2;522 ,J J Revised Revenues less Revised Expenditures JFUnd Balance AVailable {~, 845,)J J projeCted Un0blig~ted FUndS ; $0;677 J 5.8% Albemarle County General Fund Annual Budget Comparison Report (as of March 31, 2001) ($ in millions) Attachment B Revenues 60.0 50.0 ~ 40.0 '~= 30.0 .E 20.0 10,0 Real Estate Personal Sales Taxes Business Utility Tax Meals Tax Other Local Other Local State Revenue Federal Taxes Property Taxes Licenses Taxes Revenue Revenue [] 99~00 Actual [] 00/01 Appropriated [] 00t01 Revised Expenditures -- 57.0 14.0 ~q,~ -- 56.O 12.0 40,0 ~* ¢ ~* 55,0 8.0 6.0 ~ 53.0 ~ ~ 52.0 2.0 500 Administration Judicial Public Saf~ Public Works Human Parks, R~ & Communi~ Non-depa~mental 490 Development Culture Development 56,7 56.7 Transfer to School Division [] 99/00 Actual [] 00/01 Appropriated [] 00/01 Revised C:~vly Documents~[FinanciaIReport thru 3 xls]detail 4/26/01 12:30 Albemarle County General Fund Quarterly Fund Balance Report Year-to-Date (YTD) For Nine Months Ended March 31,200t ($ in millions) Fund Balance, 6/30t00 $20.499 Attachment C Less Appropriations approved 7/1/00 to date: FY01 Budgeted Anticipated Fund Balance FY00 Outstanding Purchase Orders FY00 Projects not completed by 7/1/00 FY01 New Projects in the Operating Fund FY01 Projects approved during the budget process FY01 New Projects in the Capital Fund 0830 0.371 0543 0.577 0,300 4.538 Specific Projects: ECC Dispatch Consoles QUIP Coordinator Polo Grounds Property Purchase Ward Center Property Purchase Electoral Board Assistant Damage to Sheriff's Vehicle Sheriff's Part-time Wages Total Approved Appropriations to date 0.073 0.013 0.485 0004 0.021 0.00I 0020 7.776 Current Fund Balance Less: Proposed Committed Funding to FY02 Budget General Government Initiatives (County Exec. Recommended) General Government Initiatives (Board Proposed) School Division Transfer Total Committed Funds Net Projected Fund Balance Less: Minimum Required Cash Flow Balance Net Fund Balance Available Plus: Revised FY 01 Revenues less Revised Expenditures Projected end-of-the-year Unobligated Funds t2.723 0.534 0.034 1.501 2,068 10.655 12.500 ($1.s45) 2.522 $0.67~ C:~My Docurnents~[FinanciatRepor~ lhru 3 xJs]f~nd balaf~ce 4/26f01 13:40 RECE VF.D IA¥ PLANNING OoM~UNITY DEVELOPMENT Dunlora Community Association, Inc. Post Office Box 5689 Charlottesville VA 22905-5689 Telephone 804-295-3781 Facsimile 804-295-1835 April 30, 2001 Mr. Juandiego R. Wade Transportation P!anvmr County of Albemarle Department of Planning and Community Development 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville VA 22902-4579 Dear Mr. Wade, This letter is sent to you on behalf of the Dunlora Community Association in connection with your study of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway CMCP") for the County of Albemarle. We have reviewed plans prepared by Jones and Jones of a proposed alignment of MCP in the vicinity of Dunlora and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center ("CATEC") in the vicinity of Rio Road, as provided to us by the professional planning staff of the County ("Plan A") as well as a prior plan prepared by VDOT several years ago showing the same area ("Plan B") and have discussed internally the implications for and impact upon Dunlora display by the two plans. The initial purpose of this letter is to express to you our appreciation for the reception we have received from you regarding our interest in this project and to express our wish and intent to remain involved as much as possible in the future deliberations leading to a final plan for the implementation of the MCP project. We will express similar sentiments to both the County and VDOT personnel with whom we have had recent contact regarding the MCP. The second purpose of this letter is to inform you of our thoughts regarding the MCP plans and proposals insofar as they have been revealed to us. Our thoughts are necessarily general in nature since there are very few specific, substantive points as yet presented, and even fewer of these appear to have been "firmed up" as of now. Right now, our primary concern is that the traveled portion of the MCP be as far away from the existing entrance to Dunlora as is possible, and it is for this reason that we are generally in favor Dunlora Community Association, Inc. April 30, 200I Page 2 of Plan A, rather than Plan B, or some variant of the sketch which we have seen which even further removes the traveled way from the existing intersection of Dunlora Drive and Rio Road. The next concern is with the eventual character of any parcel of land, which wilt lie between the current improved portion of Rio Road and the traveled way of the MCP in the vicinity of Dunlora Drive. Our strong preference is that any such parcels be acquired as a part of the MCP right-of-way so as to remove any possibility of development and that they be suitably landscaped as a part of the execution of the project. Our third major concern is with the nature and location of any interface between the MCP and Dunlora Drive. We are opposed to any configuration which would result in a double intersection for Dunlora Drive, one with the existing Rio Road and the other with the MCP by means of a extension of Dunlora Drive in a westerly direction to the traveled way of the MCP. The Jones and Jones plan indicates that, if there were to be two intersections, they would be only approximately 150 feet apart from each other. We believe this is problematic and is the worst possible result from our perspective. Since the proposals have not yet been refined to sufficient detail to indicate finally what the intersection situation is likely to be, we feel we cannot comment further at this time on this aspect of the situation. We do, however, emphasize that we remain concerned with the eventual decision and would wish to have some input once the situation becomes ripe for a final determination. Once again, we thank you for accommodating our need and desire to be involved in this process and we assure you of our intent to be as much as possible an affirmative force as the process proceeds to a conclusion. Very truly yours, DUNLORA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. By: ! John P. Springett, President "I THESE PLAN5 ARE UNF|NI~.IE AND Lekgd~PROVED ~ ARE I~ TO BE USED FOR ~.NY TYPE OF CO~TRUCTION OR THE ACOUISITION OF RI6~.,IT OF '~, J~eplEfle W. D~TAIL & flES~PT~$ PROFILES CHARLES D. NOTTINGHAM CO~M~SS~ONE R COMM©NWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 14Ol EAST BROAO STREET RICHMOND. 23.?.1 ~-20(~ TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ENGINEER April 13, 2001 Ms. Kat lmhoff Chief'Operating Officer Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc. Post Office Box 316 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Dear Ms. Imhoff: Thank you t-or ',.'our letter of March 29, 2001 provSding your comments and concerns re~arding the [<ours 250 East Corridor Study and the possible impacts on the historic Shadwell The rc:.ommendation in the vicinity of the historical property is to widen Route 250 octween Interstate 64 and Route 22 to an urban six-lane roadway with increased transit service. Through this area the existing two lanes are currently experiencing congestion. Increases in traffic due re future land development in and beyond the corridor will result in more congestion '3::-2 thc need to widen the roadway. Thc Rou:c 250 East Corridor Study represents the earliest phase of transportation o,2nn.~g at thc comdor tevel. No construction funds have been allocated for the recommendations contained in the study. Ifa project were funded in the future it would address possible impacts on the historic Shadwe[l Estate. [apprectate and accept your offer ora copy of the Shadwell preservation easement for my files. Again, thank you for providing me with your comments and concerns regarding the m~storic Shad,.vell Estate. Sincerely, Wayne Woodcock Transportation Engineering Program Supervisor WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Ms. Kat Imhoff Page 2 April 13, 2001 CC: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Wayne Cilimberg, Albemarle County Director of Plarming Juan Wade,.Albemarle County Planner Jim Bryan, Charlottesville Resident Engineer