HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-04-06
FIN A L
9:00 A.M.
April 6, 1994
Room 7, County Office Building
1
2
3
4
5
6
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Moment of Silence.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC.
Consent Agenda (on next sheet) .
Approval of Minutes: April 3 and October 7, 1992; December 1, 1993;
March 2 and March 9, 1994.
Transportation Matters:
a) Work Session: Six Year Secondary Road Plan.
b) Discussion: Proposed improvements at intersection of Route 712/713.
c) Other Transportation Matters.
Presentation on Groundwater Sensitivity to Pesticides from Michael
Collins, of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
(deferred from March 2, 1994).
Presentation: Airport Master Plan
Discussion: Amendment of County Code necessary to implement the election
of school board members (deferred from March 16, 1994).
Request to set public hearing to amend various sections of Article IX of
the County Code relative to the Industrial Development Authority.
Adopt Resolution of Intent to delete Section 13-18 of the County Code
dealing with Hunting Regulations.
Discussion: Regional Economic Vitality Using Partnerships.
Appropriations:
a) School Food Service Program, $143,205.73. (Form #930065)
b) Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony Point Elementary School, $90.00.
(Form #930066)
c) Woodbrook PTO Donation, $2,300.00. (Form #930067)
d) GE Foundation Grant for Middle School Science, $14,500.00.
(Form #930068)
e) Albemarle 250th Birthday Celebration, $14,235.
Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD.
Executive Session: Personnel, Land Acquisition and Legal Matters.
Certify Executive Session.
Recess.
7:00 P.M. - Reconvene in the Auditorium.
PUBLIC HEARING on the FY 1994-95 County Budget.
Adjourn to April 11, 1994, 5:30 p.m., for Joint Meeting with School
Board.
7
8
9
1b)
1 )
1~)
1(3)
1~)
15)
1p)
117)
18)
19)
2 b)
2 )
The Board will hold an executive session under Va. Code Sections
2.1-344.A.1 (personnel), 2.1-344.A.3 (property) and 2.1-344.A.7
(legal) .
CON S E N T
AGE N D A
FbR APPROVAL:
5.1 Resolution affirming the Monticello Area Community Action Agency as the
official community action agency in Albemarle County.
5.2 Request to participate in the Virginia Department of Transportation
Revenue Sharing Program.
5.3 Approval of Early Retirement Application.
5.4 Statement of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff,
Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court for the
month of February, 1994.
5.5 Request from Peachtree Baseball League to improve baseball field at
Greenwood Park.
5.6 Community Outreach Partnership Centers.
FbR INFORMATION:
5.7 Wilton Farms - Request to place single family attached units in an area
shown for multi-family use.
5.8 Copy of Planning Commission minutes of March 8 and March 22, 1994.
5.9 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service
Authority for February 17, 1994.
5.10 Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority for February 28, 1994.
5.11 Copy of Acme Design Technology Company, Crozet, Virginia, Financial
Report, Year Ended December 31, 1993 (on file in Clerk's office).
5.12 Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apartments) Bond Program Report
and Monthly Report for the month of February, 1994.
5 13 Letter dated March 16, 1994, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway
Engineer, re: notice of Location Public Hearing concerning the extension
of McIntire Road in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County.
5 14 Letter dated March 24, 1994, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway
Engineer, addressed to David P. Bowerman, Supervisor, re: feasibility of
placing a cross walk on Route 29 North at its intersection with Woodbrook
Drive.
5 15 Letter dated March 25, 1994, from D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway
Engineer, to Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: monthly update on highway
improvement projects currently under construction.
5 16 Letter dated March 29, 1994, from F. E. James, Jr., Acting Maintenance
Operations Manager, Department of Transportation, addressed to Ella W.
Carey, Clerk, re: notice that VDoT intends to repair the existing
structure over Stillhouse Creek (Route 693) during the period of April 4,
1994 through April 8, 1994.
5 17 Supts. Memo. No.3, dated March 14, 1994, to Division Superintendents,
from William C. Bosher, Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction, re:
Aid to Localities Appropriation, 1993-94, Report on General Assembly
Actions Affecting 1993-94 Budgets (HB/SB 31) .
5 18 Supts. Memo. No.4, dated March 15, 1994, to Division Superintendents,
from William C. Bosher, Jr., Superintendent of Public Instruction, re:
Aid to Localities Appropriations, 1994-96 Biennium.
5 19 Notice dated March 15, 1994, of an application filed with the State
Corporation Commission by Virginia Electric and Power Company for
approval of the pilot program: "Energy Saver Home Plus".
5 20 February 1994 Financial Report.
05/3 /94 ~~ ~~
A bemarle County Board of Supervisors Office
Document Listing
Title
ACME DESIGN TECHNOLOGY COMPANY REPORT
ACSA MINUTES
AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, PRESENTATION OF
ALBEMARLE 250TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ARBOR CREST APARTMENTS FEBRUARY, 1994
BIRDSALL, MARY SCOTT BLAKE, MOORMANS RVR
BUDGET 1994-95, PUBLIC HEARING
CERTIFY EXECUTIVE SESSION
COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTERS
CURRENT PROJECTS CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
DAVIS, LARRY W., COUNTY ATTORNEY
EXECUTIVE SESSION, PERSONNEL & LAND ACQU
FINANCIAL REPORT FEBRUARY 1994
GE FOUNDATION GRANT MIDDLE SCH SCIENCE
GEORGETOWN & BARRACKS ROADS, LEFT TURN
GROUNDWATER SENSITIVITY TO PESTICIDES
GROUNDWATER, ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT
HUNTING ORDINANCE, DELETE SECTION 13-18
IDA ORDINANCE, SET PUBLIC HEARING, AMEND
MACAA, OFFICIAL COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY
MCINTIRE ROAD, PUBLIC HEARING EXTENSION
MCRAVENS OUTDOOR THEATER
MILLS, BILL, ASSISTANT RESIDENT ENGINEER
MOORMANS SCENIC RIVER ADVISORY BOARD
PEACHTREE BASEBALL LEAGUE, GREENWOOD PK
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGIONAL ECONOMIC VITALITY USING PARTNER
RETIREMENT, APPROVAL OF EARLY
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM, VDOT
ROUTE 29 NORTH DESIGN WORK & PLANS
ROUTE 29 NORTH INTERCHANGES
ROUTE 29 NORTH, CROSSWALK AT WOODBROOK
ROUTE 712/713 INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS
RWSA MINUTES
SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS, ELECTION OF
SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM APPROPRIATIO
SECONDARY ALLOCATION OVER NEXT SIX YEARS
SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD PLAN WORK SESSIO
SMALL PROJECTS TAKE TOO MUCH MONEY
STATEMENTS OF EXPENSES, FEBRUARY 1994
STILLHOUSE CREEK STRUCTURE (ROUTE 693)
SUPTS MEMO NO 3 AID TO LOCALITIES 93-94
SUPTS MEMO NO 4 AID TO LOCALITIES 94-96
TEACHER INCENTIVE GRANT STONY POINT ELEM
VIRGINIA POWER, ENERGY SAVER HOME PLUS
WELLS, NEED INFORMATION FROM HEALTH DEPT
WILTON FARMS, REQUEST CHANGE
WOODBROOK PTO DONATION APPROPRIATION
Ref.No. Loc. Folder
94040651 45
9404065 45
94040622 45
94040623 45
94040622 45
94040651 45
94040630 45
94040623 45
94040623 45
9404065 45
94040651 45
94040630 45
94040623 45
94040652 45
94040623 45
94040630 45
94030222 45
94040630 45
94040622 45
94040622 45
9404065 45
94040651 45
94040630 45
94040623 45
40630 45
9404065 45
9404065 45
94040622 45
9404065 45
9404065 45
94040630 45
94040629 45
94040651 45
94040622 45
94040651 45
94040622 45
94040622 45
94040629 45
94040622 45
94040630 45
9404065 45
94040651 45
94040651 45
94040651 45
94040623 45
94040651 45
94040630 45
9404065 45
94040623 45
Records rinted:
Page: 1
49
..
David P. Bowerman
Charlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive
FROM:
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
and Community Development
Ella W. Carey, Clerk tiu~
April 7, 1994
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Board Actions of April 6, 1994
At the Board of Supervisors' meeting held on April 6, 1994, the follow-
ing actions were taken:
Agenda Item NO.1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 9:00
a.m., by the Chairman.
Agenda Item No.4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
PUBLIC. There were none.
Agenda Item No. 5.1. Resolution affirming the Monticello Area Community
Action Agency as the official community action agency in Albemarle County.
ADOPTED resolution.
Agenda Item No. 5.2. Request to participate in the Virginia Department
of Transportation Revenue Sharing Program. APPROVED. Ms. Humphris noted that
the draft letter should have Fiscal Year 1994-95 instead of Fiscal Year
1993-94.
Agenda Item No. 5.3. Approval of Early Retirement Application.
APPROVED.
Agenda Item No. 5.4. Statement of Expenses for the Department of
Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit
Court for the month of February, 1994. APPROVED.
Agenda Item No. 5.5. Request from Peachtree Baseball League to improve
baseball field at Greenwood Park. APPROVED the transfer of $12,000 to a new
code entitled Crozet Park/Greenwood Community Center Youth Baseball Improve-
ments and requested staff to provide a list itemizing the use of the $12,000.
*
Printed on recycled paper
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 7, 1994
Date:
Page 2
Agenda Item No. 5.6. Community Outreach Partnership Centers. AUTHORIZED
Chairman to execute letter of support for this research project with the
understanding that no local funds are to be committed.
Agenda Item No. 7a. Work Session: Six Year Secondary Road Plan.
Mr. Martin requested that the Board discuss, during the next update of
the Six Year Road Plan, its policy on the amount it allocates to unpaved
roads.
Mrs. Humphris expressed concerns about incorrect statements made in the
Planning Commission minutes of March 8, 1994. In several places one of the
Commissioners stated that the County is allowing new subdivisions to be built
where the Bypass is to be built, and then the County is pushing VDoT to
purchase the properties at a greater cost to the taxpayers. She emphasized
that these new subdivisions are by-right, the County can do nothing about them
and the County has never pushed VDoT to purchase these properties. The only
properties being purchased by VDoT are those which will suffer a hardship.
She said the Planning Commission minutes need to be corrected so that they do
not become incorrect history.
The Board SET the public hearing on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for
May 11, 1994.
Agenda Item No. 7b.Discussion: Proposed improvements at intersection of
Routes 712/713.
The Board AUTHORIZED VDoT to transfer $30,000 from a current Secondary
Roads project to proposed improvements at the intersection of Routes 712/713.
The project is to relocate the north/south section of Route 713 about ten feet
to the east and regrade the intersection to make it a "T" intersection.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Other Transportation Matters.
Mr. Roosevelt said on a daily basis his office receives requests for
small improvement projects. If he were to bring all of those requests to the
Board, it would not be long before all the County's secondary funds would be
spent on spot improvements and there would be no funds for the major improve-
ments. He still does not intend to bring these requests to the Board unless
the road has been a longstanding major problem. He thinks the Board will
begin to see a lot more of these requests since acting on Route 769 and Routes
712/713. Board members are going to have more people coming to them individu-
ally with requests for spot improvements. He wanted to add a word of caution
because eventually these projects, costing between $15,000 and $30,000, will
start affecting the money available for other improvements.
Mr. Roosevelt said the Department authorized a revision in his staff and
created a second assistant position. His new Assistant Resident Engineer is
Mr. Bill Mills, who, prior to his promotion, was Maintenance Manager. With
the reorganization Angela Tucker will now be handling the preliminary engi-
neering and distant planning, such as the Six Year Plan, as well as the
contract construction program in this residency. Bill Mills will be handling
the maintenance program, and department review of site plans, subdivisions,
permits, etc.
Mr. Roosevelt said he received information that Albemarle County will
receive about $2.1 million more in secondary allocations over the next six-
Date:
Page 3
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 7, 1994
Memo To:
year period than was anticipated. He will revise the financial plan between
now and the May 11 public hearing to better reflect these new allocations.
Mr. Roosevelt said VDoT has awarded a contract to Whitman, Requardt &
Associates, a consultant firm from Richmond, to design the three interchanges
on Route 29 North. They have already started taking traffic counts at
numerous intersections. He provided the Department of Planning with a copy of
data on where the counts are being taken and the dates of those counts. The
counts should be completed by the middle of this month.
Mr. Roosevelt said Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern, from Roanoke, VA, has
been designated to prepare the design work and plans for the public hearing on
the improvement of the third section of Route 29 North, which is the section
from the Rivanna River to the Airport Road.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the possibility of a left turn signal at the
intersection of Georgetown and Barracks Roads. Mr. Roosevelt said he would
contact the traffic engineer and make a report.
Agenda Item No.8. Presentation on Groundwater Sensitivity to Pesticides
from Michael Collins, of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
(deferred from March 2, 1994).
Presentations were made by Michael Collins and Saied Mostaghimi.
Mrs. Humphris asked that staff look into finding a way to get more
detailed information from the Health Department on wells and tracking wells.
She asked if information could be received from well drillers when they
replace existing wells that go dry.
Agenda Item No.9.
Presentation: Airport Master Plan
Presentation made by Brian Elliott; no action.
Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Amendment of County Code necessary to
implement the election of school board members (deferred from March 16, 1994)
The Board SET for public hearing on May 11, 1994, an ordinance
the County Code to implement the election of school board members.
proposed ordinance should identify two options: the elimination of
seventh (at-large) member and retaining the seventh member.
to amend
The
the
The Board recessed at 11:20 a.m. and then reconvened 11:32 a.m.
Agenda Item No. 11. Request to set public hearing to amend various
sections of Article IX of the County Code relative to the Industrial Develop-
ment Authority.
The Board SET a public hearing for May 4, 1994, at 10:00 a.m., on an
ordinance to amend various sections of Article IX of the County Code relative
to the Industrial Development Authority.
Agenda Item No. 12. Adopt Resolution of Intent to delete Section 13-18
of the County Code dealing with Hunting Regulations.
Date:
Page 4
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 7, 1994
. Memo To:
The Board SET a public hearing for May 4, 1994, at 10:15 a.m., on an
ordinance to amend Section 13-18 of the County Code to reflect language in
Section 18.2-286 of the State Code.
Agenda Item No. 13. Discussion: Regional Economic Vitality Using
Partnerships.
The Board APPROVED staff's recommendation to continue monitoring the
State's direction in encouraging regional economic development groups with a
report back to the Board as soon as additional information is available. In
addition, the Board requested staff to communicate with a newly formed private
organization mentioned by Mr. Marshall, to find out what they are planning in
the area of economic development.
Agenda Item No. 14a. Appropriation: School Food Service Program,
$143,205.73. (Form #930065)
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 14b. Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony Point Elementary
School, $90.00. (Form #930066)
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 14c. Woodbrook PTO Donation, $2,300.00.
(Form #930067)
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 14d. GE Foundation Grant for Middle School Science,
$14,500.00. (Form #930068)
APPROVED. Appropriation form forwarded to Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 14e. Albemarle 250th Birthday Celebration, $14,235.
APPROPRIATED $14,235 from the Board's contingency. Appropriation form
requested from Melvin Breeden.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
APPOINTED Larry W. Davis as the County Attorney, effective April 1, 1994.
Mrs. Humphris asked for information on legislation that would allow
Albemarle County to require evidence of sufficient groundwater before approval
of a building permit.
Agenda Item No. 16. Executive Session: Personnel, Land Acquisition and
Legal Matters.
At 12:01 p.m., the Board adjourned into executive session under Va. Code
Sections 2.1-344.A.1 (to discuss three personnel matters, one regarding the
retaining of legal counsel, one regarding possible appointments by the Board
and the other regarding a possible reorganization of certain staff positions);
2.1-344.A.3 ( acquisition of property necessary for a landfill closure and the
acquisition of property for a Greenway) and 2.1-344.A.7 (to consult with legal
counsel and staff members regarding probable litigation, or matters which
Memo To:
Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
April 7, 1994
Date:
Page 5
require specific legal advice, one concerning an appeal of a zoning decision
and one concerning the appeal of a funding decision) .
Agenda Item No. 17. Certify Executive Session.
At 2:46 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session.
absent.)
(Mr. Martin was
The Board APPOINTED Ms. Mary-Scott Blake Birdsall to the Moormans Scenic
River Advisory Board.
Agenda Item No. 18. Recess. The Board recessed at 2:49 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 19. 7:00 P.M. - Reconvene in the Auditorium.
The Board reconvened at 7:02 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 20. Public Hearing on the FY 1994-95 County Budget.
No action. Received comments from the public.
Not Docketed. Mr. Martin said, during Executive Session, the Board
discussed inviting the McRavens to meet with the Board to discuss concerns
with the Outdoor Theater and the disagreement between the Zoning Administrator
and the Board of Zoning Appeals. Although Mr. Payne, the attorney, cannot be
present, the McRavens have indicated that they can be present at the April 20
Board meeting.
There was a CONSENSUS of the Board that this item be discussed at the
April 20, 1994, Board meeting.
Agenda Item No. 21. Adjourn to April 11, 1994, 5:30 p.m., for Joint
Meeting with School Board.
ADJOURNED to April 11, 1994, 5:30 p.m., for Joint Meeting with School
Board.
Attachments
cc: Richard E. Huff, II
Roxanne White
Amelia McCulley
Jo Higgins
Bruce Woodzell
Larry W. Davis
File
RESOL UTION
WHEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency has been designated by
the County of Albemarle as the official community action agency for this jurisdiction and is
if partner with said jurisdiction in helping low income persons and communities sustain
themselves and improve their standard of living; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency has continued to serve
the low income residents of this area with many valuable educational, training, family
support and community development programs; and
WHEREAS, local funding is an important source of matching support for state and
federal funds used to provide service for residents of the locality; and
WHEREAS, this locality has contributed to the Monticello Area Community Action
f]1gency in an effort to sustain the work of this agency;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the County of Albemarle reaffirms its designation of the Monticello
Area Community Action Agency as the official Community Action Agency for this
j(trisdiction.
::. ::. ::. ::. ::..
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 6, 1994.
Eci(A kv (I (G'Lu-, ~
Clerk, Board of County S't!)ervisors
David P. Bowerman
Oulrk>ttesviUe
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlo..ttesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
April 7;' 1994
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scollsvine
Sally H. Thomas
5.>tmuel Miller
Mr. Michael J. Bednar
Associate Dean for Academic Programs
University of Virginia
School of Architecture
110 Campbell Hall
Charlottesville, Virginia 22903
Dear Mr. Bednar:
On Wednesday, April 6, 1994, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors voted to support the proposal submitted by you for
establishing a Community Outreach Partnership Center to serve the
Thomas Jefferson Planning District. The Board's support was in
recognition of the planning assistance that you proposed in
studying master neighborhood development plans for up to four of
the County's growth areas as well as providing designs for moderate
income housing and site analysis for feasibility of affordable
housing. It is our understanding that no local funds are required
for this project from Albemarle County.
On behalf of the Board, I wish you well in your pursuit of funding
for this project and trust that your effort will benefit planning
and housing initiatives county-wide.
Sincerely,
'~ 2: 'J
j !
:$, '.,. ,/
L a_l~tuc.., ,r 1/1. 1u/l'V':I /82<..fL-
Walter F. Per ins
Chairman
WFP/dbm
94.002
*
Printed on recycled paper
David P. Bowerman
Olarlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296:5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
R Ivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
While Hall
Forrest R. Mllrshall, Jr.
Scottsvllle
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
April 7," 1994
County Primary and Secondary Road Fund
(Revenue Sharing Program)
Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-75.1
Fiscal Year 1994-95
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Mr. James S. Givens
Acting State Secondary Roads Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Givens:
The County of Albemarle, Virginia, indicates by this letter its official
intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 1994-95.
The County will provide $500,000 for this program, to be matched on a dollar-for-
dollar basis from funds of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The County worked with its Resident Engineer, and developed the attached
prioritized list of eligible items of work recommended to be undertaken with
these funds. The County also understands that the program will be reduced on a
pro rata basis if requests exceed available funds.
Sincerely,
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
EWC:mms
Attachment
c'c: Dan S. Roosevelt
*
Printed on recycled paper
....,
...
C>
....1
...
co
~
~ -
'" -
- ..,
e:;: ~
~ ~V)I~
-lidO"' ~
==-~
Cboo~Q)
;;;:: .D
.... ....
'" <<:
<1l
....
....
.....
>
~~
<1l L.)
o
<1l....
....
.... '"
:>.c
UU
-
.... U
~~
::a
a~
.. ..-
.~ ...
E::2
...
:-!. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - -- -- - - -- -- -- -- -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - --
0
:;;u
~ ~
0 .. 0 0
c
.. 0 .... U
'" ~
>-
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- ---- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----
o ..
;!
o ..
.. -
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----
N
...
.." C
.. ...
~
o ~...
~.:;::- :-
- -
....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- -- -- -- - - -- - - -- -- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- -- -- - - -- - - - - -- - - --
~
.. ..-
... ~-
~--
..... 0_
~ ~-
_ C
z
~ ~ u;:: --:::: _::::::::-:::::: _::-:::-:::::::::_:: _::::::- -::-:::::~:::: _: :~:-::::::::::::
~ -
.. ~
-UoC::l E
.... .. 0
..~ ....
- ...... 0
- - - - - - - - - - - ~- - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _...;t __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __
CO <1l
E E
f' .:L 0
~ .... U
..j CJ <1l
~ en >
.....
w 0 ....
n::: Wa VI (IJ
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..,.,-- -- -> - - - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - -- -- -- -- - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - --
C .M
:> ....
...... 0
.... ....
'" co
C E
o -'"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - .:.. - - - - - -'~- - -- -... - - -- -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
L.) Cli
..... ""
"0
"0
-<<: V)
0\
C I en
o ....j c::
-- - - -- - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _r::_<:1:'__ _ D__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ __ _ _ __
o Q'\ "rl >-,
.,-t .-( ~ co
.... u :l
-Ie: 0)"0
.,-t.,-t tfl ('J
E 0
In 00 ...
("")"0 C
. c:: 'I""i C
....... ~ .u 0
<b")-4-4 (f) 'M
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -'M-O-- -- -- ---- -- ---- -- -- -- __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ____ __ __ __ __ ____
..... .L.J..-{ Xu
- - ~ ro ~ OJ
........ ...... ClI 0 .... tI)
~~~ U OJ 0
..... ~ c: :l c::
.....a -cQJ ,uC'O
D..o ..... QJ 00 ..c
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~- - -- -,...;-...-- -- - - - - -- -- -- - - -- -- - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - - - - - - -- -- - - -- -- - - - - -- - - - - -- --
co >.. U::J
E L.) <1l
-,-I "c t: ~
.w =' c:: "'0
U) 0 .0..-(
l.LlU U:l
~~
~
a
..c:I ........
....... 0 ~
~ bIS.~
... ~ -
o ..
~.
u
~ ..
t:ro 0.-4
~~~
~
.." ~-
.....CI ~
.." ~-
C _
~:-
~ ~
- .."
=~~
=' ...... 0....
... ..
~
~ ~
"_""t:3'_
.C':! a~
~~-
~
""
<1l
o
L.)
..c:
L.)
.....
:l
:::>
..j
......
o
z
o
o
o
o
o
'" ~ N
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -'- -- -- -~- -- -..........-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --.-- -- --"-- -- -- -- -- -- ..- -- ----
..
<>
-~
~ c_
C~ ~
~.~-
~~
U
O'
o
o
o
o
'"
\ .
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ------ ---- -- ---- -- -- ---- ---- -- -- -- ---- ---- ---- -- -- .--- ----
-..... -
a ..
.~~=
~ ~ ::.
o...~""g
<> ~
..
.
/"
~
hLt
David P. Bowerman
Olarlottesville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296~5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall, Jr.
Scottsville
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
April 7; 1994
Mr. Ken Ackerman
Executive Director
Monticello Area Community Action Agency
215 East High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Mr. Ackerman:
At its meeting on April 6, 1994, the Board of Supervisors
adopted the attached resolution reaffirming the designation the
Monticello Area Community Action Agency as the official community
action agency for Albemarle County.
Sincerely,
EWC:mms
]571 1 W, ~ Cl/LI;:',k
~. Carey, Cl~k
Attachment
cc: Roxanne White
*
Printed on recycled paper
.
---
..
RESOL UTION
WHEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency has been designated by
the County of Albemarle as the official community action agency for this jurisdiction and is
a partner with said jurisdiction in helping low income persons and communities sustain
themselves and improve their standard of living; and
WHEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency has continued to serve
the low income residents of this area with many valuable educational, training, family
support and community development programs; and
WHEREAS, local funding is an important source of matching support for state and
federal funds used to provide service for residents of the locality; and
WHEREAS, this locality has contributed to the Monticello Area Community Action
Agency in an effort to sustain the work of this agency;
NOW, 11lEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, that the County of Albemarle reaffirms its designation of the Monticello
Area Community Action Agency as the official Community Action Agency for this
jurisdiction.
::.. ::.. ::. =:. =:.
I, Ella W. Carey, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy
of a resolution unanimously adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, at a regular meeting held on April 6, 1994.
W. ,',
/ ': J .
~{( /' ~' (tij/Lc V
Clerk, Board of County Slf/Jervisors
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA DATE: ITEM NUMBER:
April 6, 1994 , !
SUBJEC /PROPOSAL/RE UEST:
esolution reaffirming the Monticello Area Community
Action Agency as the official community action agency
in Albemarle County.
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
yes (1)
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Department of Social Services regulations require that every five years the Monticello Area Community
Action Agemcy update its designation as the official Community Action Agency in each jurisdication that it serves. The
attached resolution reaffirms this designation for MACAA.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution designating the Monticello Area Community Action Agency as
the official community action agency for Albemarle County.
MACASUM.SAM
94.037
.. ~.,,,.~~~.._~,.,....-.,--., "--'-"~' .--.-
":J ~:; n
I
:,
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency has been designated by the
dounty of Albemarle as the official community action agency for this jurisdiction and is a
partner with said jurisdiction in helping low income persons and communities sustain
themselves and improve their standard of living;
WHEREAS, the Monticello Area Community Action Agency has continued to serve the low
income residents of this area with many valuable educational, training, family support and
c(!)mmunity development programs;
WHEREAS, local funding is an important source of matching support for state and federal
funds used to provide service for residents of the locality;
WHEREAS, this locality has contributed to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency
in an effort to sustain the work of this agency;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED:
That the County of Albemarle reaffirms its designation of the Monticello Area Community
Action Agency as the official Community Action Agency for this jurisdiction.
,
1>
r'
-
:-I'! ) l 1
C~ ~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
VDOT Revenue sharing Program
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 1994
ITEM HUMBER:
1\. i. 'Ij( (. \;:'
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Request by County to participate in the
VDOT Revenue Sharing Program.
CONSENT AGENDA: x
ACTION: Yes
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Ci1imberg, Benish
REVIEWED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
BACKGROUND:
VDOT's County Primary and Secondary Road Fund, or "Revenue Sharing Program," provides the
opportunity for the County to receive an additional S500,000 for road improvements. The
program requires a dollar-for-dollar match by the County. The result is a total commitment
of an additional Sl,OOO,OOO towards improvements to the local road system. The County has
participated in this Program since 1988.
DISCUSSION:
The County must formally request participation in this program by April 22, 1994. Attached
is a draft letter of intent to participate in the program for FY 94/95. The funds for
FY94/95 would be used for the construction of Berkmar Drive Extended from Woodbrook Drive to
just south of Hilton Heights Road.
The Board has planned for participation in the Revenue Sharing Program in the FY95-99 Capital
Improvements Program, and recently approved the FY 94-95 Capital Improvement Budget which
included S500,000 in matching funds for the Revenue Sharing Program.
RECOMMENDATION:
participate in the Revenue Sharing Program consistent with the approval of the FY95-99
Capital Improvements Program and authorize the Chairman to notify VDOT of our intent to
participate in the program.
VDOT. SUM
94.035
.
David P. Bowerman
Ol.uk'llt."svdk>
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296:5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte Y. Humphris
J.xk .~1I
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
ScOtlSVlIk>
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
April 7; 1994
County Primary and Secondary Road Fund
(Revenue Sharing Program)
Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-75.1
Fiscal Year 1994-95
County of Albemarle, Virginia
Mr. James S. Givens
Acting State Secondary Roads Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Givens:
The County of Albemarle, Virginia, indicates by this letter its official
intent to participate in the "Revenue Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 1994-95.
The County will provide $500,000 for this program, to be matched on a dollar-for-
dollar basis from funds of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The County worked with its Resident Engineer, and developed the attached
prioritized list of eligible items of work recommended to be undertaken with
these funds. The County also understands that the program will be reduced on a
pro rata basis if requests exceed available funds.
Sincerely,
{;Jcdtv- ?;f;/~~
Walter F. Perkins
Chairman
EWC:mms
Attachment
cc: Dan S. Roosevelt
*
Printed on recycled paper
.-</
...
C>
.-<1
...
~
'"
~
...
~~
-
-
...
<=>
C>
...;;; I '-'
C> ...
... <li
~ ""'lJl ~
-"'0\ L..
=~-~
ett-""'-QJ
~::: .0
... .....
~ <:
<li
.-<
.-<
.....
>
~~
<li W
o
<li.-<
'"
.-< to
OJ.!:
UU
-
- '-'
~~
a""
~ ~-
. .., ...
:::.;;:;
~--
:-! -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----
<>
:;;;'-'
~..~
<> ."
... <>-
C*~
>-
-- --::-:: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- ----
o
u
<> ~
_ a
<>
-~
<> ~
... ...
-- ---- -- -- ---------- ---------- ---- ------------------ -------- ---- -- -- ---- ---- -- -- -- -- -- ---- ----
N
.,..
~ a
~ ...
~
~~S ;-
~?: -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- n -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -_ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __. __ __ __ n
..,
~ ~-
.,.. ~...
~~2 z
... a
~ ~ ~ J : _: - :: :: -_ :_ ::::::: _:: :::: : -:: _:: -:: -: :::::::: :: _: __ :: _: :: :: _::: -- :- _: _::: :: :: -_ :::
~ -
~ ..
-~
u
~ ~
~ ~
... "-' 0
-- -- -- -- -- -...-- -- -- -- -- __ __ _....;t __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ____
to <li
E E
r_ ~ 0
-< '" U
-.:t QJ <li
..... CO >
.....
W 0 '"
lY: .w Cl tI) Q)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'1;1- _ _ _ _ > _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
c: ....
=' ....
"-' Q
-< '"
to to
c: E
o -'"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _'1:'1_ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
W <li
..... CO
-C
-C
<If)
(]"o
o I Ul
'0 .....J" C
- - - - -- - - - - - - h _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c_a-_ _ _ 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ __
o ()'\ ....-4 >...
~~;;; :::~ ij~
~tn_ ........C QJ-o
~ :; ~ .~ -.-I (/) ~
_n.1~ (f) OO~
:;;~l: c;-g .~c:
~- Z ~:::I .wO
-- -- -- -~ -- -- -- -- -- -- -~-'="-- -.~-.B-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ____
.... ..u........ >< U
- - ~ m QJ QJ
.-...... d 0 f..f en
.... ~ U ~ 0
..=:: ~ ;;: c: ~ C
L..o t::I ""C CU .w t"C
a... ..... Q) 00 .0
-- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --.J- - -_ --.1_,,",,__ __ _ _ _ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
ro >. U:::I
E W <li
-!""'I.C C QJ
.w=, C-O
(/) 0 0 -r-!
u..Ju u:>
~~
.,..
a
...c:I ...........
.a.... '0 ~
~ - ~
""'~ ...
<> .,
OJ
~ ~
~ 0._
~~~
.;-.:;: -
~!:~
,.,
E
o
'"
to
o
W
.!:
W
.....
:>
o
'"
.....
o
o
o
o
o
o
If)
~
-
~
N
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.;.. - - - - -~- - - ------ - - -- -- - - -- - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - --
'"
<>
~ a_
~~~
u~
0-
o
o
o
o
If)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -" - - - - - --
a
~. -.:J _
"- t..t.......
<> ." ~
~ - ~
~ ..,
~ 0
.
'-~~----1 WTle -::::::,-'
: ! i"_._~ 17 [,.~} l..,,~~.~ _. _ l-.~ I'. -.''''1 '
-~._"-~.~.,...,,~ : I
q if
MAR "<.
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND. 23219
',-",,"..[,.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
Sl~:"iE:F~'/}:SOR:3
March 4, 1994
JAMES S. GIVENS
STATE SECONDARY ROADS ENGINEER
Boards of Supervisors of All Counties
and the City of Suffolk Council
Re: County Primary and
Secondary Road Fund
(Revenue Sharing Program)
Fiscal Year 1994-95
Dear Members of the Boards of Supervisors
and Members of the Council:
The County Primary and Secondary Road Fund, more commonly
known as the "Revenue Sharing Program", allows the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) to provide state funds to match
local funds for the construction, maintenance, or improvement of
primary and secondary highways in your county. This money also may
be used for the addition of subdivision streets otherwise eligible
under Section 33.1-72.1 Code of Virqinia. Such a cooperative
program between local governments and VDOT allows for an increased
number of road improvements throughout the Commonwealth. In the
current fiscal year, 30 counties chose to participate in the
Revenue Sharing Program, thereby providing $20 million for
additional improvements to the primary and secondary system.
The Commonwealth Transportation Board's annual allocation of
state funds in this program is limited to $10,000,000 (Code of
Virqinia, Section 33.1-75.1[C]). If your county wishes to
participate in the program for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1995, the Board of Supervisors or members of Council must notify
VDOT of:
* its intent to participate in the Revenue Sharing Program,
* the amount of local funds to be provided, not to exceed
$500,000, and
* the prioritized list of eligible projects with individual
estimated project costs.
The Resident Engineer for your locality will work with you to
identify a list of one or more improvement projects t.o be
undertaken with these funds. Your Resident Engineer will also help
you establish estimated project costs. VDOT must receive this
information on the attached form by April 22, 1994
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
.
,
page 2
This package of information should be sent to:
Virginia Department of Transportation
Secondary Roads Division
1401 E. Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Note: A sample letter of notification is attached for your
reference.
In the event that localities throughout the state request a
total in excess of the available matching funds, the Commonwealth's
participation will be adjusted downwards on a oro rata basis to
remain within the limits of the appropriation. The adjustment may
require that the lowest priority project or projects be dropped
from the program. You will be notified of the preliminary amount
available to your locality in June, 1994; this amount will be
subject to approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board early
in the 1994-95 Fiscal Year.
Conversely, should total requests require less than the
available funds, those counties which initially requested the
$500,000 maximum may apply for a part of the remaining
appropriation (Code of Virqinia, Section 33.1-75.1 [D] ) . The
allocation of any remaining funds will be decided in June, 1994.
Note: A set of guidelines for administering this program is
enclosed to assist you in making these assignments.
Thank you for your continued support of this effort.
Sincerely,
>;37 ~ (/l-
~~~
James S. Givens
State Secondary Roads Engineer
Attachments
pc: Mr. CLaude D. Garver, Jr.
District Administrators
Resident Engineers
.
f
, 1994
County Primary and Secondary Road Fund
(Revenue Sharing Program)
Code of Virginia, Section 33.1-75.1
Fiscal Year 1994-95
County of
Mr. James S. Givens
Acting State Secondary Roads Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Givens:
The County of , Virginia, indicates by
this letter its official intent to participate in the "Revenue
Sharing Program" for Fiscal Year 1993-94. The County will provide
$ ($500,000.00 maximum) for this program, to be matched
on a dollar-for-dollar basis from funds of the State of Virginia.
The County worked with its Resident Engineer, and developed
the attached prioritized list of eligible items of work recommended
to be undertaken with these funds. The County also understands
that the program will be reduced on a pro rata basis if requests
exceed available funds.
(Applicable if County requested $500,000 and wants more):
Having requested the maximum of $500,000 in state funds, the
County further requests that an additional amount of $
be made available in the event that any funds remain unallocated
after initial allocations are made.
Sincerely,
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
pc: Resident Engineer
Attachment: Priority Listing of Projects
,
.
GUIDE
to the
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM
of the
Virginia Department of Transportation
Secondary Roads Division
Memorandum SR-48-92
Richmond, Virginia
March, 1992
~
~
Copyright 1992, Commonwealth of Virginia
for further information, contact
Resident Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
(see local telephone directory)
State Secondary Roads Engineer
Virginia Department of Transportation
1401 E. Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 786-2746
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SECONDARY ROADS DMSION
MEMORANDUM
.
Subject: Revenue Sharing Program
Number:SR - 48 - 92
Specific Subject: GUIDE TO THE
REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM per
Code of Virainia 33.1-75.1
Date: 3/10/92
Supersedes:prev. guide
Directed to:
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
DISTRICT ADMINISTRATORS
RESIDENT ENGINEERS
Sig ature: ~~J= n .
(iJ~ 2, ~
state Seconda Roads Engineer
This revised document provides a comprehe~ve summary of the Revenue Sharing
program as established by the Code of Virginia and as governed by the policies of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board. It is intended to serve as a reference for local
jurisdictions and VDOT staff in the preparation and disposition of applications for program
funding.
This document defines eligible projects, summarizes funding limitations, and describes
the roles of the parties involved in the application and approval process.
All previous instructions regarding administrative procedures for Revenue Sharing
projects are hereby superseded.
Copyright 1992, Commonwealth of Virginia
.
.
REVENUE SHARING GUIDELINES
CONTENTS
"
I.
Purpose
1
II.
DefInitions
A. Budget Item Number
B. Construction Improvements
C. County Primary and Secondary Road Fund
D. Incidental Improvements
E. Maintenance
F. Matching Funds
G. New Hardsurfacing (paving)
H. Plant Mix
I. Project (eligible)
J. Project Number
K. Secondary Six-Year Plan
1
III. Eligible Work 3
A. DefIcits on Completed Construction or Improvements
B. Supplemental Funding for Ongoing Construction or Improvements
C. Supplemental Funding for Future Construction or Improvements
D. Construction or Improvements not Included in the Adopted Six Year Plan
E. Construction or Improvements for the Acceptance of Subdivision Streets
F. Unprogrammed Maintenance
IV. Application Process
V. Approval Process
VI. Implementation Process
A. VDOT Administered Work
B. County Administered Work
VII. Additional Allocations
5
6
6
8
.-~
REVENUE SHARING GUIDELINES
I. PURPOSE
~
The "Revenue Sharing Program" provides additional funding for the maintenance or
improvement of the primary and secondary highway systems and eligible additions in the
counties of the Commonwealth, including the former Nansemond County portion of the City
of Suffolk.
The program is administered by the Department of Transportation, in cooperation
with the participating localities, under the Authority of Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of
Virginia. An annual appropriation of funds for this program is designated by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board, with statutory limitations on the amount authorized
per locality.
Application for program funding must be made by resolution of the governing body
of the jurisdiction in which the road is located. Project funding is allocated by resolution
of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. Construction may be accomplished by the
Department of Transportation or, where appropriate, by the locality under an agreement
with the Department.
II. DEFINITIONS
The following terms are important in understanding the revenue sharing program.
A. Budget Item Number, means a multi-digit code which identifies work to be completed;
it is used for minor activities which are usually done in one year. (See incidental
improvements) .
B. Construction Improvements, means operations which usually require more than one fiscal
year to complete, and which change or add to the characteristics of a road, facility, or
structure.
C. "....County Primary and Secondary Road Fund", means the designation given to the
specially funded program developed by the county government and the Department of
Transportation subject to approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board. This is
more commonly referred to as the Revenue Sharing Program.
";1
1
D. Incidental Improvements, means any operation, usually constructed within one year,
which changes the type, width, length, location, or gradient of a road, facility, or structure;
or the addition of features not originally provided for such road, facility, or structure.
E. Maintenance, means activities involved in preserving or restoring the roadway, facility or
structure to its original condition, as nearly as possible.
F. Matching Funds, means funds provided by the Commonwealth which are allocated to
eligible items of work in participating counties and the City of Suffolk to supplement, on a
dollar-for-dollar basis, the locality's contribution for eligible projects.
G. New Hardsurfacing (paving), means the fIrst-time paving of a previously unpaved
roadway; usually composed of a multiple course asphalt surface treatment. In order for a
road to be eligible for paving, it must meet the minimum traffic volume criterion of 50
vehicles per day (VPD).
H. Plant Mix, means an asphalt-based compound used in highway construction and
maintenance. For a road to be eligible for plant mix, it should:
*
Have an average Daily Traffic (ADT) of 500 or greater;
Be a major secondary and serve as a major transportation facility in the
locality;
Be classified as "tolerable" in accordance with established standards for such
a determination; and
Consist of an overlay necessary to restore the typical section and/or riding
surface of the roadway.
*
*
*
I. Project (eligible), means work including construction, improvement, maintenance, and
addition costs.
J. Project Number, means a multi-digit code which identifies work to be completed; it is
used in conjunction with construction.
K. Secondary Six-Year Plan, means the official listing of projects to be constructed, which
is developed jointly by the Department of Transportation and the county governments.
(Section 33.1-70.01,Code of Vireinia.
2
ill. ELIGmLE WORK
Revenue Sharing funds may be used to fInance eligible work on a county's primary
or secondary system. Below is a list of work which could be considered eligible for Revenue
Sharing funds, and examples of each.
...
A. Deficits on Completed Construction or Improvements.
When the Resident Engineer has a completed project with a defIcit, the county may
request that the defIcit be fInanced with Revenue Sharing funds provided the county is
willing to contribute one half of the defIcit as its portion.
Example:
Actual Cost
Available project funding
Actual defIcit
= $120,000
= $100.000
= $ 20,000
= $ 10,000
= $ 10.000
= $ 20,000
County participation
State match
Revenue Sharing Funding
B. Supplemental Funding for Ongoing Construction or Improvements.
When the Resident Engineer anticipates the cost to complete the construction or
improvement will exceed the fInancing currently committed to this work, the county may
request that the anticipated defIcit be fInanced with Revenue Sharing funds provided the
county is willing to contribute one half of the anticipated defIcit as its portion.
Example:
Available project funding
Estimated cost
Estimated defIcit
= $100,000
= $150.000
= $ 50,000
= $ 25,000
= $ 25.000
= $ 50,000
County participation
State match
Revenue Sharing Funding
"
3
C. Supplemental Funding for Future Construction or Improvements Listed in the Adopted
Six-Year Plan.
When the Resident Engineer anticipates allocations (in addition to those proposed
in the adopted Six-Year Plan) will be required to completely fmance a project, the county
may request permission to provide one half of such additional fInancing with the remaining
one half provided by state matching funds. This includes, but is not limited to, such things
as signalization, additional preliminary engineering, or acquisition of additional right-of-way.
This same procedure may be utilized to accelerate the funding of a project and thereby
permit its completion earlier than otherwise would have been possible.
D. Construction or Improvements not Included in the Adopted Six-Year Plan.
When the Resident Engineer believes that the necessary work may be completed
within the fIscal year, the county may request one half the funds to construct a project not
currently included in the Six-Year plan. However in such cases, the county funds, together
with the state matching funds, must fInance the entire estimated cost of the project within
the fIscal year involved.
E. Construction or Improvements Necessary for the Acceptance of Specific Subdivision
Streets Otherwise Eligible for Acceptance into the System for Maintenance.
The construction or improvements (widening, surface treating, etc.) necessary for the
acceptance of certain subdivision streets otherwise eligible under Section 33.1-72.1,Code
of Virginia. for acceptance into the secondary system. The work should be completed within
the fIscal year involved.
F. Unprogrammed Maintenance Whose Accomplishment is Consistent with the
Department's Operating Policies.
Examples of this type of work include normal maintenance replacement activities
such as guardrail replacement, plant mix overlays, sidewalks and curb & gutter repair.
4
IV. APPLICATION PROCESS
Application for Revenue Sharing Funds may be made only by the governing body of
the county or the City of Suffolk in which the road is located. The following process
describes the steps which occur in determining the funding available for each participating
locality to fInance eligible projects.
,
1. VDOT's State Secondary Roads Engineer sends a letter inviting all county
governments to participate in the revenue sharing program for the coming
fIscal year.
2. The County Government determines its intent to participate in the program,
and the amount of county funds to be provided. The County Government and
Resident Engineer jointly prepare a prioritized plan to recommend assignment
of requested funds to eligible projects. This prioritized plan should:
* list what is to be included for each project (example: length of road,
width of road, estimated cost, etc.);
* identify who will administer each project (see subsection 33.1-75.1
[B], regarding when a project may be administered by a county.)
While there is no limit on the amount of funds the county may contribute, the
amount of funds eligible for State matching funds may not exceed the
statutory limitation.
3. The Resident Engineer submits the detailed prioritized plan developed in Step
2 of the process with recommendations to the Secondary Roads Division, with
a copy to the appropriate District Administrator.
This prioritized plan must be received by the date specifIed in the invitation
letter.
4.
VDOT's Secondary Roads Division notifIes the county governments of the
amount of State matching funds available for use in their counties, subject to
the approval of the Commonwealth Transportation Board. If the total
requests exceed the amount available according to statute, each participating
county will receive State matching funds on a pro rata basis, and the
prioritized plan will be adjusted accordingly.
\.
.
5
V. APPROV ALPROCESS
The following process describes the steps which occur in securing approval of the
Statewide Revenue Sharing Program from the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
1. VDOT's Secondary Roads Division reviews the individual plans, and if found
to be acceptable, develops the Statewide plan and recommends it be
submitted to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for approval. The
Maintenance and Programming and Scheduling Divisions will also review the
plans as appropriate for their areas of responsibility.
2. The Commonwealth Transportation Board approves the Statewide program,
including allocations to specific projects in each county's plan. Upon approval
of the plan, it constitutes the ".... county primary and secondary road fund."
Any modification of the approved program must be agreed upon by the
county government and VDOT and approved by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS
A. VDOT administered work
The following process describes the steps which occur in the implementation of the
Revenue Sharing Program, beginning with the approval by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board and ending with the payment by the county and subsequent state
match.
1. VDOT's Secondary Roads Division authorizes the Fiscal Division to reserve
the State Matching funds for the approved specific projects. These monies
are placed in a special VDOT account for this purpose.
2. If applicable, the Secondary Roads Division prepares county/state agreements
which govern the performance of work administered by VDOT. The
agreement must be executed prior to incurring any cost to be financed from
the Revenue Sharing Program.
3. The Fiscal Division bills the county for its share of the estimated cost of work
to be performed; the money is collected prior to the beginning of work in
accordance with current billing procedures.
6
4. After the project is completed, the Fiscal Division makes a fInal billing to the
county for its share of the actual costs incurred, in excess of those provided
in Step 3. If the county's share of the actual cost is less than the estimated
cost, the difference may be refunded to the county or reassigned to another
Revenue Sharing project.
,
If a County government wishes to cancel a project begun under the revenue sharing
program during the Preliminary Engineering (PE) or Right of Way (R/W) phases but prior
to the construction phase, it may do so by Board of Supervisors' resolution. The
Department retains the sole option to require reimbursement by the county of all State
matching funds spent from the time the project was begun until it is canceled.
If construction does not begin before the end of the Fiscal year involved, the county
must pay the Department its share, or certify that the money is held in a special fund
account specifIcally earmarked for the project(s). This must occur by June 30 of the fIscal
year or it may result in loss of state matching funds.
B. County administered work
The following process describes the steps which occur in the implementation of the
Revenue Sharing Program, beginning with the approval by the Commonwealth
Transportation Board and ending with the payment by the county and subsequent state
match.
1. VDOT's Secondary Roads Division authorizes the Fiscal Division to reserve
the State Matching funds for the approved specifIc projects. These monies
are placed in a special VDOT account for this purpose.
2. The Secondary Roads Division prepares county/state agreements which
govern the performance of work administered by the county. The agreement
must be executed prior to incurring any cost to be fInanced from the Revenue
Sharing Program.
3.
After all work is completed, the County makes a fInal billing to VDOT for its
share of the actual costs incurred. If the actual cost is less than that provided
by the agreement, the difference may be reassigned to another Revenue
Sharing project in the county, or refunded to the VDOT Revenue Sharing
account.
..
...
7
If a County government wishes to cancel a project begun under the revenue sharing
program before it is completed, it may do so by Board of Supervisors'. resolution. The
Department retains the sole option to require reimbursement by the county of all State
matching funds spent from the time the project was begun until it is canceled.
If construction does not begin before the end of the Fiscal year involved, the county
must certify that the money is held in a special fund account specifically earmarked for the
project(s). This must occur by June 30 of the fiscal year or it may result in loss of state
matching funds.
Vll. ADDITIONAL ALLOCATIONS
One month prior to the end of any fiscal year in which less than $10 million has been
allocated from state funds under section 33.1-75.1 [D] of the Code of Virginia. those
counties requesting $500,000 may be allowed an additional allocation. The difference
between the amount allocated and $10 million shall be allocated at the discretion of the
Commonwealth Transportation Board among the counties receiving the maximum
allocation.
8
J ..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
r':
0;: "_,
AGENDA T
Request
Retirement Approval
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
(7". ( {--f <{;~ (i---
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: ----X.-
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
BACKGRO
Subsequ
retire
have re
1994.
years
Departm
Police
hearing
Huff
REVIEWED BY:
the Board's earlier approval of those County employees indicating a desire to
the County's Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program during 1994-95, we
eived an additional application from an employee who wishes to retire on November 1,
his employee, upon his retirement, will have given the County of Albemarle almost 34
f dedicated service in our Sheriff's Department and subsequently our Police
nt. The cost of this additional early retirement request can be absorbed within the
epartment's budget and will have no impact on the budget as advertised for public
that the Board approve this additional Voluntary Early Retirement
94.039
,;
'..
rill-
David P.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
(804) 296:5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S. Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. M rshall, Jr.
Scatts "lie
Sally H. Thomas
Samu(>1 Miller
MEMORANDUM
Robert B. Brandenburger, Director of Human Resources
Ella W. Carey, Clerk ~~
April 7, 1994
Board Actions of April 6, 1994
At its meeting on April
pproved an early retirement
urrently works in the Police
ovember 1, 1994.
6, 1994, the Board of Supervisors
application from an employee who
Department and wishes to retire on
The Board also appointed Larry W. Davis as the County
ttorney, effective April 1, 1994.
WC:mms
c: Richard E. Huff, II
Beth O'Dea
*
Printed on recycled paper
. .1
r f ';!
State Compensation Board
Month of Mr """() I '1 ~ 4
STATEMENT OF EXPENSES
lerk, Circuit Court
- 0 -
/, IJtJ{)
/, 0 ~ ti
No e: Expenses listed above are only those office expenses in
wh'ch the state Compensation Board has agreed to participate, and
ar not the total office expenses of these departments.
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930071
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
CAPITAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TRANSFER TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO YOUTH BASEBALL FIELDS.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
1900071000950006
1900071000950003
CROZET/GREENWOOD YOUTH BASEBALL
CROZET PARK
$12,000.00
(12,000.00)
TOTAL
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.00
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
PARKS
APPROVALS:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
DATE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
;5<. .2z -;9 ~
-/~ ,2;2 -9Y
. . ,..
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
r:
(J ~-~ ~.~~.
_ J
AGENDA TITLE:
GreenwoodjCrozet Park Youth Baseball
Improvements
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 1994
\
/)
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Request from Peachtree Youth Baseball League
to use funds designated for crozet Park youth
baseball field improvements for field
improvements at the Greenwood Community
Center.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: ~
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACTIS):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Mullaney
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 1989 the Peachtree Youth Baseball League approached the County Parks and Recreation
Department and Crozet Park with a plan to build two additional fields at Crozet Park.
The purpose of the request was to consolidate as much of the Peachtree program as possible
at Crozet Park to take advantage of increased concession revenues to offset league expenses.
With the approval of the Crozet Park Board, a funding request was placed in the County's 5
year Capital Improvements Plan. In July of 1993, the County appropriated $12,000 for this
purpose. The Parks and Recreation Department advised the Peachtree League that funds were
available and a plan needed to be submitted for the approval of the Crozet Park Board. In
March of 1994, the Recreation Department was contacted by Peachtree and were advised that the
Junior League Program would remain at the Greenwood Community Center as opposed to moving to
Crozet Park. The change in plans is a result of a strong desire expressed to Peachtree
officials by the Crozet community to keep the older age group at Greenwood and restrict the
play at the Park as much as possible to little league and T-ball.
DISCUSSION:
The Peachtree Youth Baseball League is now requesting that some of the funds that have been
designated for baseball improvements at Crozet Park be used for improvements at the Greenwood
Community Center. Plans for the Greenwood field include some additional fencing, minor
grading and infield work and the construction of dugouts. Plans for Crozet Park still
include the purchase of a portable backstop and some field work. Peachtree will supplement
the County funding with volunteer labor and donations. Peachtree is anxious for the approval
to be given as soon as possible. The Crozet Park Board of Directors is in agreement with
this request as evidenced by the enclosed letter from the Park Board President.
RECOMMENDATION:
Since the funds are designated for youth baseball field improvements and Peachtree is the
organization that operates youth baseball in the western part of the County, staff recommends
that this request be approved. Due to the nature of the improvements and the anticipated
volunteer involvement and donations, it is difficult to estimate the exact funding necessary
for each facility. Staff recommends that the entire $12,000 amount be transferred to a new
code entitled Crozet park\Greenwood CC Youth Baseball Improvements.
PEATREE
94.038
-
,.
MaJtch 14, 1994
o
BoaJtd 06 SupeJtv~~oJt~
A.tbemaJt.te Count.y
Dealt S~Jt~:
Peacht.Jtee 8a~eba.t.t League wa~ gJtant.ed $12,000 ~n t.he Cap~t.a.t
ImpJtovement. Budget. t.o be u~ed 60lt 6~e.td ~mpJtovement.~ at. CJtozet. PaJt2.
We wou.td .t~2e t.o lteque~t. t.hat. a poltt.~on 06 t.h~~ money be u~ed
60Jt ~mpJtovement.~ 06 t.he ba.t.t6~e.td at. GJteenwood PaJt2. YouJt 6avo~ab.te
Jte~pon~e t.o t.h~~ Jteque~t. wou.td be appJtec~at.ed.
Than2 you 60Jt youJt ~uppoJtt. 06 ba~eba.t.t ~n A.tbemaJt.te Count.y.
S~nceJte.ty,
,1 ,0 ~ /
/jJ!c ~CL~-C-~
Pet.e HeJtJt~ng, PJte~~~ent.
Peacht.Jtee L~t.t..te League
. .
"j, .
/klY
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Parks and Recreation Department
County DUice Building
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902.4596
Telephone (804) 296.5844
March 22, 1994
I have been in contact with officials of the Peach Tree
aseball League, and it's my understanding that there are many of
he park's neighbors that wish not to see the league use Crozet
ark for their Jr. League division, and that any development and or
'mprovements to the park be centered around the play for t-ball and
i ttle league. This places the Jr. League back at Greenwood, which
as been their temporary home for several years. If you remember,
he whole concept behind improvements to the park was to place all
lay under one umbrella, which in theory would bring more people to
he park, and create more control on the part of the league. With
is newest development, we are recommending that some of the funds
at were allocated for baseball improvements at the park be
sifted for similar improvements at Greenwood. As we both
discussed and agreed, we don't want to see all funds transferred
f om the park, but since these were approved funds for baseball
i provements, we are proposing a new code entitled Crozet ParkjGCC
Y uth Baseball Improvements.
r. C.T. Pace, President
laudius Crozet Park
995 Saddleback Drive
rozet, Virgini~ 22932
C.T. :
We are scheduled to make this presentation to the Board of
pervisors on April 6, so I would appreciate a letter from you, as
esident agreeing to these terms. I need this letter by March 30,
it can be included in the overall package that is given to each
ard member prior to their meeting. If you would like, I can pick
up at your house one evening after work. (I'm a nice guy.)
ce this action is approved, I will present to you and the Crozet
ard what expenditures are going where.
Call me if you have any questions.
.....--")
s~cer~y 'h
( Ar<:9
Roo$rt W. Crickenberger
Deputy Director
R Cjsms
c Walter Perkins
, .
Robert W. Crickenberger, Deputy Director
County of Albemarle Parks and Recreation
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
March 23, 1994
Dear Bob:
It is indeed unfortunate that the Peach Tree
Baseball League must use money allocated for the Claudius
Crozet Park baseball improvements for Greenwood instead.
However, it is very important to keep the neighbors
happy. So, the Claudius Crozet Board of Directors agree
to the transfer of funds to be used for improvements
at Greenwood. It would be great if there were some funds
available for minor park improvements. Thank you for your
attention to this matter. You're such a great guy!
Please keep me informed and if I may be of further help,
please let me know. Again, thanks for all your effort.
Respectfully,
~e'Jr.
President
Claudius Crozet Park
~ .
. '
~
MaJL h 14, 1 994
tift\R 6
. ...... ...... ......... ..... .....1 i
"\ .:.::,~~ t)::.; St;r-):::~:~\'!~3t).:::~ ~
, .'~...' ..,. .-...-..----.............--.._..,..~._I
BoaJr. o~ SUpeJLV~40Jr.4
A.tbe aJr..te Coun.ty
DeaJt S~JL4:
ImpJL
ooJt
JLe4p
Peach.tJLee Ba4eba.t.t League wa4 gJLan.ted $12,000 ~n .the Cap~.ta.t
vemen.t Budge.t .to be u4ed 60JL 6~e.td ~mpJLoVemen.t4 a.t CJLoze.t PaJt~.
We wou.td .t~2e .to Jteque4.t .tha.t a pOJt.t~on 06 .th~4 money be u4ed
mpJtovemen.t4 06 .the ba.t.t6~e.td a.t GJteenwood PaJt2. YouJt ~avoJtab.te
n4e .to .th~4 Jteque4.t wou.td be apPJtec~a.ted.
Than2 you 60Jt YOUJL 4UPPOJr.~ 06 ba4eba.t.t ~n A.tbemaJt.te Coun.ty.
S~nceJte.ty,
..1,( 7/
!:c-' rC ~c '::-O:--L.. ~
Pe~e HeJtJtlng, PJte4~~en.t
Peach.tJtee Ll.t.t.te League
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(".:-:, -r-,'"
o.!. ."....._" _
AGENDA T
Communit
Partnership Center
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 1994
ITEM HUMBER:
-, . ~
,I
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
A reques
for Univ
Architec
establis
Center t
District.
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: ----X-
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
~
(
REVIEWED BY:
Benish
BACKGRO
The Uni ed states Department of Housing and Urban Development is making funds available to
estab1i h Community Outreach Partnership Centers. Faculty members at the School of
Archite ture at the University of Virginia have decided to submit a funding proposal that
would p ovide planning functions for affordable housing and neighborhood revitalization in
the co unities of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District. While much of the grant would
provide services in other jurisdictions, one of the benefits to the County is in its outreach
task to assist in developing master development neighborhood plans for up to four of the
County' growth areas in conjunction with our Planning Department as part of the
Compreh nsive Plan process. Additionally, grant funds are proposed to be used to provide
designs for moderate income housing as well as analyzing sites to determine feasibility for
new own r or renter housing in terms of zoning, infrastructure and a site configuration.
that the Chairman be authorized to execute a letter of support for this
with the understanding that no local funds are to be committed.
RECO
Staff r
researc
94.045
" '
COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTER AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
STATEMENT OF WORK
The Charlottesville Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
consists of an older central city, a surrounding suburban county, a
university lying partly in the city and partly in the county, and
several outlying rural counties. As a result of this geography, this
central Virginia region provides the opportunity to conduct research,
to engage in outreach activities and to share information across a
wide spectrum of settlements.
RECEIVED
MAR 5 , 1994
Planning UBPL
'. .
The Charlottesville MSA is a microcosm of conditions and
issues found in most larger metropolitan regions of the United
States. The central city of Charlottesville has the characteristics
of most central cities of metropolitan areas. Unlike the surrounding
County of Albemarle which is rapidly growing and generally more
affluent, the city contains double the percentage of black residents as
the county. Residents of the city pay a higher proportion of their
income for housing. As the number of poverty level families in the
City has increased, the demand for social services has risen rapidly
causing tax rates in the City to be the highest in the area. The City
has experienced a relative decline of manufacturing jobs and both an
absolute and a relative loss in sales tax revenues.
Albemarle County is a good example of a suburbanizing area
not unlike such areas elsewhere in the U.S. today. New development
takes place on a regular basis adding population, jobs, and traffic in
this auto oriented portion of the region. Changes in the County
influence changes in the City. Needy residents of the County have
relocated to the City in order to find more affordable housing, retail
stores have relocated from the City's downtown to newer locations in
the County, and City schools have become increasingly dominated by
minority students as white families have gravitated toward the
County. Though they are wholly separate political jurisdictions, the
City and the County are both parts of the same community and in
order to address the City's urban problems, the County's problems
also have to be addressed and vice versa.
The University of Virginia is located physically in the middle of
this community. Jurisdictionally it straddles the City/County line.
The University is the major employer for City, County, and rural area
residents. University students compete with City and County
residents for housing which impacts costs and availability.
Expansion and construction at the University potentially impacts
adjacent neighborhoods at the same time that it creates much desired
economic development opportunities.
The rural counties of Nelson, Greene, Fluvanna, and Louisa,
contain several small towns which are growing in their commuting
populations. They look to the City, County and University for jobs,
services, and various forms of technical assistance on a regional scale
related to planning, public services, and economic development.
This is the basic laboratory which the Charlottesville MSA
makes available to the Community Outreach Partnership Center. In
1
. . .
the Charlottesville MSA, one finds the complete spectrum of settings
for research, outreach and information sharing related to urban
problems. While providing a full spectrum of problems,
the community is also of a more manageable size than would be
found in much larger metropolitan areas. This factor makes the
Charlottesville MSA a model laboratory for testing the feasibility of
the COPC idea.
RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
Metropolitan Development Policies
Each central city is part of a metropolitan region. The health of the
central city is partially determined by the role the city
plays in the economic, social, and political life of the region.
William Lucy and David Phillips in the Dept. of Urban and
Environmental Planning have been conducting studies of the
conditions of cities in their regions in the United States.
An analysis of how economic growth in the City of Richmond
waa accompanied by social deterioration from 1960 through
1990.
An analysis of the spatial distribution of income,
poverty, and housing in Pittsburgh and the surrounding
region.
An analyis of disparities, including fiscal disparities
between cities and suburbs in each of Virginia's
metropolitan areas.
These studies will be used to interpret the causes of disparities
betwen Charlottesville and its region and the reasons for
Charlottesville's decline in recent decades. The growth in city-suburb
disparities in the Charlottesville metropolitan area is one reason for
the emphasis in this proposal for assistance to counties in the larger
region in providing more affordable housing.
Research Task: Conservation Districts
Study Team: Richard Collins, Bruce Dotson
Study Time: 2 months budgeted; 1 month
matching
The Charlottesville, City Council and the University of
Virginia have proposed major developents along West Main
Street which connects downtown with the University. The
proposed development is perceived by some as a threat to the
adjacent neighborhoods which have a large minority
population. There is considerable controversy about how to
preserve the neighborhoods without excessive interference with
the rights of landowners to sell or modify their property.
The state legislature recently denied a request by the City
to authorize the use of Conservation Districts to deal with
the threat largely because of the controversy over the
effectiveness of the conservation district idea.
This research task would study the types of mechanisms used
by other cities with similar problems. Since similar issues
are found in many cities, the results of this research would
have a wide audience.
The outcomes of this research would be presented to a
representative group of local stakeholders, including
minority residents to determine whether a consensus could be
reached on a strategy. The Institute for Environmental
Negotiation would provide mediation services for the
consensus building process and prepare a final set of
recommendations.
Research Task: Urban Enterprise Zone Analysis
Study Team: William Lucy, Errol Cowan
Study Time: 6 weeks budgeted, 3 weeks matching
Study the results of each of Virginia's urban enterprise
zones in terms of job development, tax base enhancement,
transportation effects, and residential development. The
earlier studies of Virginia's central cities and
metropolitan areas, will be used as the foundation for
analyzing the effects of urban enterprise zones . By
assessing the effects of these urban enterprise zones
against trends in cities and suburbs, the importance of
this type of policy intervention can be evaluated. By this
method, an appropriate weight can be aasigned to the value
of urban enterprise zones in relation to other types of
policy interventions that may be more, or less, relevant to
issues such city-suburban disiparities, access of low income
persons t employment, rehabilitation of deteriorated
neighborhoods and expansion of total job opportunities.
The results of this study would be to propose other
approaches to urban redevelopment which embrace a regional
03/31/94 16:24
e804 982 2678
ARCH. . UVA
@002
neighborhoods and exp'ansion of total job opportunities.
The results of this study would be to propose other
approaches to urban redevelopment which embrace a regional
perspective and seek to contain urban sprawl and create
sustainable communities.
IIMPEDIMENTS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING
I
IThere are many types and forms of impediments to the provision of affordable
Ihousing. All of them have economic implications although they may not be
I~conomic in nature. In this Reserch
~ctivity, several of these will be explored from a unique and
Freative perspective so as to forge breakthroughs in developing t.his critical social
ineed
I
ations
Study Team: Errol Cowan, Michael Bednar
Study Time: Three months
City and county subdivision regulations have often been
considered by developers as impediments to the provision of
affordable housing. Such aspects as street widths, turning
radii and yard setbacks add costs to housing. In this task,
these regulations would be studied to determine which ones
can be altered so as to make more efficient use of the land
and infrastructure, two of the main components of
affordability. The time cost of government and financing
approval procedures on housing affordability will also be
investigated. Similar studies in other locales will be
researched. Revised subdivision regulations and approval
procedures considering housing affordability will be
developed.
I$esearch Task: Housing: Prototypes
Study Team: Kenneth Schwartz, Michael Bednar
5
City and county subdivision regulations have often been
considered by developers as impediments to the provision of
affordable housing. Such aspects as street widths, turning
radii and yard setbacks add costs to housing. In this task,
these regulations would be studied to determine which ones
can be altered so as to make more efficient use of the land
and infrastructure, two of the main components of
affordability. Similar studies in other locales will be
investigated. Revised subdivision regulations considering
housing affordability will be developed.
Likewise, building code regulations may be an impediment to
providing affordable housing. Certain regulations might be
altered or revised without jeapordizing life safety.
During this task, the the Virginia Statewide Building Code
will be analyzed to determine changes which would facilitate
affordable yet safe housing construction including mobile
homes.
Research Task: Housing- Prototypes
Study Team: Kenneth Schwartz, Michael Bednar
Study Time: 2 months budgeted, 1 month matching
Economy in housing can result from mass production of a
single design as long as that design has been well
considered. The prototype unit design must be efficient in
space utilization and efficient in construction and use of
materials. In this research task, design studies utilizing
computer modeling will lead to affordable housing
prototypes. This includes designing housing units of
different sizes and configurations so as to make possible
development under differing site conditions and densities.
OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
Outreach Task: Belmont N eig-hborhood Plan
Task Team: Elizabeth Waters (Director), Daniel
Bluestone, Warren Boeschenstein,
Errol Cowan, Transportation consultant
Task Time: 4 months budgeted, 2 months matching
Belmont is an historic industrial neighborhood adjacent to
central business district of Charlottesville. The City
Planning Commission has identified Belmont as a target
neighborhood for CDBG funding. This task is to develop a
comprehensive neighborhood revitalization plan for Belmont.
A neighborhood task force composed of city officials and
residents would guide the development of the plan. The plan
would include all facets of neighborhood planning
including historic preservation, urban design, housing
rehabilitation, transportation and economic feasibility.
This task would be supervised by a project director who
would manage a team of faculty and consultants. Several
sub-tasks have been identified as parts of the oveall plan:
Belmont Historic Resources Survey
Belmont Urban Design Plan
Belmont Housing Development Plan
Belmont Transportation Plan
Belmont Redevelopment Feasibility Study
Outreach Task: West Main Street Development Corridor
Task Team: Michael Bednar, Kenneth Schwartz,
Daphne Spain, Warren Boeschenstein
Task Time: 4 months budgeted, 2 months matching
West Main Street is the primary urban connector between
downtown Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. It
has been in a state of development transition since 1977
when it was studied under a HUD sponsored Urban
Observatory grant. In 1993, a joint city and university
study conducted by William Rawn Associates developed a
comprehensive master plan. This task would focus on
developing implementation strategies and plans for specific
aspects of this master plan including revisions to the plans
03/~1/94 16:25
'5'804 982 2678
ARCH. . LV A
~004
Outreach Task: Albemarle County Growth Areas
Task Team: Michael Stem, Maurice Cox
Task Time: Twelve months
Albemarle County sUlTOunds the City of Charlottesville
with a ring of urbanized neighborhoods, outlying
communities and historic villages which are
designated in the comprehensive plan as growth areas.
These tasks would develop master development plans for
four of these designated growth areas to be chosen in
conjunction with the Albemarle County Planning
Department. Each of these development plans would
include affordable housing, newly constructed or
rehabilitated, for purchase or rental, depending upon
the location. Designated sites would be studied to
determine design feasibility utilizing housing
prototypes developed as a Research Task. Other issues
to be studied are preservation of natural landscapes,
roads and utilities, commercial development and
public facilities and recreation areas,
Dutreach Task: Relrional Affordable Housine-
Task Team: Judith Kinnard, Michael Stern
Task Time: Six months
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District, a five county
region of the Commonwealth of Virginia, has developed
a Comprehensive Affordability Strategy (CRAS). A total
of $570,000 in Consortium HOME funds from the Dept. of
Housing and Urban Development are being used since
1992 to carry out this strategy. These tasks are to
undertake specific affordable housing projects, for a
variety of population groups, in each of the five
counties. Each task involves analyzing a site or sites
to determine its feasibility for either new owner or
renter housing in terms of zoning, infrastructure andcsite configuration. Schematic architectural designs
8
Task Time: 2 months budgeted, 1 month matching
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District, a five county
region of the Commonwealth of Virginia, has developed
a Comprehensive Affordability Strategy (CRAS). A total
of $570,000 in Consortium HOME funds from the Dept.
of Housing and Urban Development are being used to
carry out this strategy. These tasks are to undertake
specific affordable housing projects in each of the
five counties. Each task involves analyzing a site or
sites to determine its feasibility for either new owner
or renter housing in terms of zoning, infrastructure
and site configuration. Schematic architectural
designs for an affordable housing project in each
county will be completed including a construction
budget.
Albemarle County Affordable Housing Project
Nelson County Affordable Housing Project
Fluvanna County Affordable Housing Project
Greene County Affordable Housing Project
Louisa County Affordable Housing Project
.. .
COMMUNITY OUTREACH PARTNERSHIP CENTER
ORGANIZATION
The proposed Community Outreach Partnership Center at the
University of Virginia will be a part of the School of Architecture. It
will be under the administrative control of Michael Bednar, Associate
Dean for Academic Programs. The
COPC at UV A offices will be located in the community, easily
accessible to all participants in this partnership endeavor.
Planning and design laboratories will be located in the School
of Architecture. The COPC Director will be an individual experienced
in community planning who will devote 50% time to this role. Staff
will include a full time executive assistant.
Faculty members in the School of Architecture will assume
responsibility for various projects in the Center. These faculty are
urban planners, architects, landscape architects and architectural
historians representing the four departments in the School. Specific
individuals with appropriate qualifications and experience are
identified as team members in the Work Statement. All projects will
be conducted by interdisciplinary teams. Faculty from the
departments of government, engineering and others at the University
of Virginia may also participate in certain projects. Where faculty
expertise is not available to undertake a project, outside consultants
will be retained.
A highly cooperative working relationship exists between the
University of Virginia and its surrounding communities. This
relationship is too extensive to innumerate here since it extends into
areas of health, education, business, government, and law. In
community planning, the University, Albermarle County and City of
Charlottesville have a Planning Coordination Council to cooperate in
mutual planning activiities. This group has undertaken planning
studies of the neighborhoods contiguous to university lands. Most
recently, the university and the city jointly sponsored a study of the
West Main Street corridor to mutually plan for university expansion
and community redevelopment.
.... .. "
RESPONSmILITIES STATEMENT
The COPC at the University of Virginia intends to undertake each of
the responsibilities identified in the Notice of Funding Availability.
A. Employ Outreach Resources: the research tasks identified
in the Work Statement are each related to the Outreach
Activities.
B. Establish Outreach Activities: The Outreach Activities
identified in the Work Statement are related to a central
focus of affordable housinl!. Some of them deal with this
issue directly whereas others are concerned with the social,
political and economic context which makes affordable
housing possible. All of them have been identified as
necessary activities by the communities affected. They will
be developed between the University of Virginia and the
communities in the spirit of partnership intended by this grant.
Support letters from each of the communities
attesting to this cooperation are included in the Appendix.
C. Establish a Community Advisory Committee: This Committee
will be formed when the COPC is initiated and meet monthly
thereafter to provide overview for the research and outreach
activities. Many of the projects will also have citizen
advisory committees to oversee their work. These committees
will be representative of the communities affected in terms
of race, gender and ethnicity.
D. Coordinate Outreach Activities: The COPC Director will
undertake this responsibility with guidance from the
Community Advisory Committee.
E. Facilitate Public Service Projects: A specific activity
would be to convene a Symposium on Affordable Housing, with
national experts in the field, as part of the annual
Virginia Governor's Conference on Housing.
F. Act as a Clearinghouse: A Housing Resource Center would
be established at COPC. It would be a centralized source of
information on housing programs and housing assistance in
this region. This would include individual and household
counseling on housing opportunities.
. . . "
G. Develop Instructional Programs: Several kinds of citizen
workshops would be conducted including energy conservation,
lead paint removal, housing rehabilitation and home
financing.
H. Exchange Information: Results of efforts at this COPC would
be freely exchanged with others around the nation. This
information would also be included by faculty members in
their classroom instruction.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
f"', ,;
\",> .~
AGENDA TITLE:
Wilton Farms
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 1994
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Request to place single family attached
units in an area shown for multi-family
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
Yes
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CONTACT{S):
Messr. Cilimberg, Ms. Patterson
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Wilton Farms property was zoned R-10 with proffers in April 1990 (see Attachment A).
The Wilton Farms Apartments were built shortly after approval of the rezoning.
DISCUSSION:
Proffer #4 states "Our sketch plan for Parcel 8 will serve as a guide to development"
(the sketch plan is Attachment B). The applicant is proposing to locate 30 attached units
in the area noted as Parcel B which was to contain 76 apartment units. A sketch plan is
Attachment C (please note that lots between Route 20 and the access road are not proposed
at this time and would require an amendment to the existing proffer). Staff has
interpreted Proffer #4 as a limitation on areas of development, points of access and
maximum number of units and not unit type. Staff has advised the applicant that the
changes are acceptable under the approved zoning based on the following:
1) Development area is unchanged - the impact of the development to Route 20 should be
equal or less effect.
2) Maximum number of units is not exceeded.
3) Change in point of access should not have a detrimental affect.
4) The change in dwelling type should reduce building height and be of a lower scale
than the apartment units originally proposed.
RECOMMEHDATION:
None - provided for the Board's information.
94.047
cc: Bill Fritz
-".~~,...~ ----1
,,~-,.,.,.~~."""'"
-;I
r.l '1 J,
';~~ ;j
#II
~'-~" ."''''''''''-''''-'-. ~""'''''
J
.'..., ~
~"""
I ,
IATTACHMENTAj
-
-
'~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Dept. of Planning & Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596
(804) 296-5823
'. .
April 23, 1990
Phil A. Sansone, MD
Rt. I, Box 244
Standardsville, VA 22973
RE: ZMA-89-24 Phil Sansone
Tax Map 78, Parcel 8
Dear Mr. Sansone:
The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on
April 4, 1990, unanimously approved the above-noted request
to rezone 21.72 acres from R-l, Residential to R-I0,
Residential, with proffer. Property known as Wilton is
located on the east side of Rt. 20N just south of its
intersection with Elks Drive (st. Rt. 1421). Tax Map 78,
Parcel 8 (part of). Rivanna Magisterial District. Please
note that this approval is subject to the following proffers
submitted and verbally amended by th~ applicant:
1. We proffer that there shall only be one entrance on
this property.
2. We shall treat the Route 20 entrance as a corridor to
Charlottesville and as a scenic by-way. We shall have
at least a 75 foot setback from Route 20 edg~'of
right-of-way. We shall provide trees or plantings to
protect this scenic by-way.
3. Proffered, for dedication upon demand of the County, a
reservation of a 50 foot right-of-way from Route 20
approximately 250 feet in length and a 50 foot
right-of-way paralleling Route 20 allowing northern
properties and property 58-I access through our
entrance. (Sketch attached) .
r
"^~'f
I ATTACHMENT A II Page 2/
Phil A. Sansone, MD
Page 2
April 23, 1990
4. Our sketch plan for Parcel 8 will serve as a guide to
development.
5. Fifty (50) units are intended to provide housing for
.~_tenants with an income of approximately $18,000-$26,000
for a period of five years.
6. Construction shall not commence prior to January 1,
1994, except on Parcel A, containing 15.6 acres, more
or less.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the
above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
~,~~~~
Direct~;I~ilpla~~& Community Development
VWC/jcw
ATTACHMENT
cc: Kathy Dodson
Richard Moring
Charles Caldwell
(:/
~~
~ )
-\'
.\
\
\
~
""
~
~
-----
\
"
--..
~
----
------
'Ideo 6U!UUBld
---------
---
t661 L I 93~
a3^'303~
-.....-....
............
-----...----------.
............
~
"--
"
-----
\10+-)1('1\
-----
---
:'-= .~', .~,-;-:~--=:.. ..~:...~-
.~(;: :'~~"'> '. . i.' /: ::.
. " .
.. :\~ :;;~( 0:> ,.
, . ::,../';.H:' ..~y...F, ,\.: i' . . .
..I::; . ",,~' ~~~.....1.l.j~..'G" ...,
",'.' .I:~ ..;~/,,,l: !!,::J, ..."~.,,......,.~~i.J.,_.C'___
.~< ".......~..J. ~/~...,;;I::,..~.<:;:..-..,..~..,.. .... .'-.----..;--.-
. .:..)., ~k~' t. .' ~. .~(A;~' .
.........-.... .
,
.'
.;
# ;.' ;."
", . ..
.. . ': -' .\.. '. -.
, "
.....,.
;,-:~~'.':.:T..;:C,; .
,~. -~~:..::.;.~~.:~..~~:#:: :~ '. '. - .' ,.
. " .' ~". -.
'.'.ri .:. '. : 0"'.,
~.:- t. . :',":. :.
. ~.'
"." ..,.
..~ :
. ..
.~.
~':~'::.. ~':;~#~#,~:
.' ':. '.
,:f:'---:::'i~t:5t "
, 0: . ," r. ....
<{., , ;. . .' .' ~ ....ci~
i Lll~!lli
.' '. ~~ ~ ~ :l::J
W j. p ,." l:: 101 uu
I- . 3 ~. " ,: ::
. (J). t:tr/: ,tl~.~:.'
. , '
. <.~i~~ '~. ::..:-~: ,
. - ' .
.. . ,-
" . I
., ..
~ . ':':~" ~ ,:~. .:':', :
'j .....
, . .,1
. . ~
.: .-
~~,J~!~\~: .~, :.~.
': '
\.
..
~ Acme Design Technology, Co.
\
1000 AlIview Drive, Crozet, VA 22932. Tel. 804-823-4351
March 14, 1994
j,'
~AtlP
~~;, ,.
Ms. Ella W. Carey
Clerk of Board of Supervisors
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
Enclosed is Acme Design Technology, CO.'s audited financial
report for year ending December 31, 1993.
If you have any questions or comments, please advise.
Sincerely,
-IU
I
Hall
Thomas D.
President
ahd
Enclosure
..
Lt ',:?Y,~.
,~}l (..IHAL (5 / zj
.
AT..
P.O. Box 334
Belcamp, Maryland
410-575-7412
21017
I\BC' H",!\i'KJAL SERVICESINC
March 16, 1994
Mr. Bob Richardson
Sovran Bank, N.A.
Post Office Box 26904
Richmond, Virginia 23261
Re: Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.)
Dear Mr. Richardson:
Enclosed please find the Bond Program Report and Monthly Report
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions for the month
of February 1994.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me
at 410-575-7412.
Sincerely,
~_~~ \fI-V(~~-
Sheila H. Moynihan
Project Monitor
/shm
enclosures
c C :tte..<&lla....,e.,....,., e1-e1"k~CMC
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
( . BONO PROGRAM REPORT
Month February VN(~
p'o~"Y: Arbor Crest ~partments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Pto;.a.: 051-35371
loc.tion: Charlottesville, VA Numbe, of Unit. 66
SubmlueCS Dy: Loretta Wyatt March 4, 1994 Effective 2/28/94
MII'\A~' D,T.
Total Occupied 66
LOwt" INCOWE Bond Occupied 18
I.
The lollowlng unIts ".~ ~n dt'SlgnAl'CS IS utow., Incom." units
1 Arbor Crest Dr 21 Dorothy B. Hubicsak 41 61.
2 4 Arbor Crest Dr 22 Beverly T. Lane 42
62.
3 5 Arbor Crest Dr 23 Margaret L. Mawyer 43 63.
4 9 Arbor Crest Dr 24 Virginia Burton 44 &C.
~ 12 Arbor Crest Dr 25 G. Robert Stone 4S
6S.
6 14 Arbor Crest Dr 26 Evelyn Dover 46
M.
7 . 15 Arbor Crest Dr 21 Jane Wood 41 e7.
a 20 Arbor Crest Dr 25 Evelyn Mandeville 45 6a
9 24 Arbor Crest Dr 29 Gertrude Breen 49 68.
10 30 Arbor Crest Dr :10 Mary Cox Allen ~ 70.
11 76 Arbor Crest Dr Jl Barbara Datz S1
71.
12. 78 Arbor Crest Dr 32 Ernest M. Nease 52 72
t3 84 Arbor Crest Dr :13 Juanita Boliek 5J 73.
14 90 Arbor Crest Dr :14 'Betty B. Elliott 54 74.
IS 92 Arbor Crest Dr :1S Dorrthy H. Reese SS 7S.
16 94 Arbor Crest Dr :16 Sarah E. Fischer ~ 76.
11 102 Arbor Crest Dr :\1 Anne Lee Bullard S7.
77.
III 106 Arbor Crest Dr J8 Katherine T. Nowlen sa. 7a.
Ig :19 59 71.
~'O 40 60 10.
T t\c c".lI'\~$ 110m pI t'v.OuS repoll IfOllt'e led in "'. lbov. hlhng II'
O.'ellonl A6d l1Sone
to 11 1.' 11.
2 12 2 12.
3 1) 3. 13.
4 14 4. 14.
5 1S 5 15.
6 16 6 18.
7 \1 7 17.
I 18 I. la..
. 19 t ".
10 20 10. 20.
I. ..
Effective February 28, 1994
MONTHLY REPORT PURSUANT TO
SECTION 7(a) OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS
TO: ABG Associates, Inc.
300 E. Lanbard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202
RE: Hydraulic Road Apartments - Aroor Crest Apa.rt:Irents
Charlottesville, Virginia
Pursuant to Section 7(a) of the Deed Restrictions (the wDeed
RestrictionsW), as defined in an Indenture of Trust dated as of
Apr il l, 1983, between the Industr ial Development Author ity of
Albemarle County, Virginia (the WAuthorityW), and your bank, as
trustee, the undersigned author ized representative of
Richmond-Albemarle Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited
Par tnership (the W Purchaser W), hereby cert if ies with respect to
the operation and management of Hydraulic Road Apartments,
Charlottesville, Virginia (the WProjectW), that as of the date
shown below:
1) The number of units in the Project occupied by
lower income tenants is 18 .
2) The number of units in the Project unoccupied and
held available for Lower Income Tenants is -0-
.
3) The number of units rented and the number of units
held available for rental other than as described in
(1) and (2) is 48
4) The percentage that the number of units described in
(1) and (2) hereof constitute of the total number of
units in the Project is 27%.
5) The information contained in this report is true,
accurate and correct as of the date hereof.
6) As of the date hereof, the Purchaser is not in
default under any covenant or agreement contained
in the Deed Restrictions or in an Agreement of Sale
dated as of April 1, 1983, between the Authority and
the Purchaser.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has signed this Report as of
March 4, 1994
RICHMOND-ALBEMARLE LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia
limited partnership
By: ~ ~ ~
Authorized Re resentative
--'-.
.
.
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 EAST BROAD STREET
RICHMOND,23219
EARLC. COCHRAN, JR.
STATE Ln:ATlONAND DESIGN ENGINEER
March 15, 1994
McIntire Road Extension
Proj. UOOO-104-V02, PE-101
0631 002-128, C-501
Fed. Proj. M-5104 (108)
Albemarle County and
City of Charlottesville
Fr: Int. Route 250
To: Rio Road (Route 631)
Clerk of the Court
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
.
Attached is a Public Notice and Map advising of a proposed
highway improvement project.
Should you desire additional information or have any
questions or comments concerning this highway matter, please refer
to the above project number and description when you contact this
office.
;nC~lY~ ~_,_~~_
E. C. Cochran, Jr., P.E.
State Location and Design Engineer
,j
'J
~~, f
.
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
-~-~
.
McINTIRE ROAD EXTENSION
Location Public Hearing
""""
City of Charlottesville I Albemarle County
.
Hearin/!:
Tuesday, April 26, 1994 * between 4:00 P.M and 8:00 P.M
Charlottesville High &hool located at 1400 Melbourne Road
in Charlottesville.
Purvose:
To provide you an opportunity to review and comment on the
current information for the alternatives for the extension of
McIntire Road from the intersection of Route 250 to Rio Road
(Route 631). There will be no formal presentation, however an
audioMsual presentation explaining the proposed location
corridors will be shown continually.
Review:
An Environmental Document and other information pertaining to
the project will be available in the Culpeper District Office located
on Route 15 (Business) just south of Route 3 in Culpeper, at the
Charlottesville Resident Engineer's Office located on Route 250
three miles east of Charlottesville and in office of the Director of
Public Works located at 305 4th Street N W
Written Statements:
Oral statements will be taken at the hearing. Written statements
and other exhibits relative to the proposed project may also be
submitted at the public hearing or to the Department at any time
within 10 days after the hearing.
Rieht ofWav:
Relocation assistance, right of way acquisition, together with
tentative schedules, and constrnction iriformation will be discussed.
Svecial Assistance:
lfyou require special assistance to attend and participate in this
meeting or needadditional information contact Mr. Don R. Askew,
Culpeper District Administrator at (703) 829-7500.
TDD / Voice Calls: 1-800-307-4630
~....7Vi<glnla Department or Tnn'porta',oo
Project: UOOO-104-V02, PE-101
0631-002-128, C-501
Federal Project: M-5104 (108)
.
'.
,..... V;'gln;a Depa,'men, of T,ansportatlo,
. HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
MciNTIRE ROAD EXTENSION
. CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
FROM: INTERSECTION RTE. 250
TO: RIO ROAD (RTE. 631)
PROJECTS: UOOO-1 04- V02,PE-1 0 1 ,C-50 1
0631-002-128,C-50 1
FEDERAL PROJECT: M-5104 (108)
................ CORRIDOR "A"
------ CORRIDOR 'A" REV.
""""JI. CORRIDOR "8"
-. -. - CORRIDOR "0"
I
o
Scale in Feet
I
1000
I
2000
RD.
.
a:
c
RUGBY AVE
w
en
o
a:
/~
r
.~.--.._'~-.,~~....,..,..._--.-
r;; (Ii) ~i' ~.-. .
, "" I,'
'. ,',
March 24, 1994
Route 29 at Route 1417
Mr. David Bowerman
Albemarle Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Dear Mr. Bowerman:
At the February Board of Supervisors meeting you requested the Departrrlent study
the feasibility of placing a cross walk across Route 29 at its intersection with
Woodbrook Drive. This location has been reviewed by the District Traffic Engineer
and this request is being denied at this time.
Current Department policy is to require sidewalks and handicap ramps at each
end of any cross walk painted on our highways. Currently sidewalk does not exist on
the Woodbrook Subdivision side of Route 29. The reconstruction of this section of
Route 29 will result in curb and gutter and some sidewalk in this vicinity. The
Traffic Engineer has suggested we restudy this location once that construction is
complete to determine if sufficient pedestrian traffic exists to warrant a cross
walk. For your information I have attached a section from an article concerning
Traffic Engineer myths and realities which speaks to pros and cons of pedestrian
cross walks. This may be of some assistance to you in responding to your
constituents.
Yours truly,
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
DSR/smk
attachment
cc: Ella Carey
J. S. Hores
". )
t"",'
\
: 1./ <,. , i
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE. 22902
.' ......_~.".,.,-,.......,_.---....,......,:~ ""'.__.,.,:,...~-...:;
March 25, 1994
'~'-lL) 0;:= St3f;f.'F~\/:~:':C){<
""""'-"" ,-----~ ;jj......~.._~
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
Current Projects
Construction Schedule
Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk
Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Dear Ms. Carey:
Attached find the monthly update on highway improvement projects currently
under construction in Albemarle County. Please see that this information is
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors members. I will be prepared to discuss this
matter with them at the next meeting if they so desire.
Yours truly,
~j) f(cC-5 cV'f_fV
"-' .....J
D. S. Roosevelt
Resident Engineer
DSR/smk
attachment
cc: R. W. Tucker, Jr. w/attachment
David Benish w/attachment
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21 ST CENTURY
~ ~
)
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
ALBEMARLE COUNTY
APRIL 1, 1994
+------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
IROUTE I LOCATION STATUS I ESTIMATED I
INO. I I COMP.DATE I
+------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I I I
I 631 15TH STREET EXT. CONSTRUCTION 88% COMPLETE I MAY 94
I I S. ROUTE I-64 I
+------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I
I 20
I
I
I FROM 3.4 MI. S. ROUTE 53
I TO 3.8 MI S. RTE. 53
CONSTRUCTION 11% COMPLETE
SEP 94
+------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
I
I 29
I
I
I FROM HYDRAULIC ROAD TO
I RIO ROAD
CONSTRUCTION 14% COMPLETE
DEC 95
+------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
+------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
+------+-------------------------------------+----------------------------------_._+----------- +
+------+-------------------------------------+------------------------------------+----------- +
REVISED DATE
** NEW PROJECT
*
~
..
..
lo
-. ...
, . '!
\ . \~ !;nd ~-J-.J.:~ ,)
,. , . I . T'. l J i:- .I
,Jt-l . J..-!.' 'l' I 1.J (~ .
. ,;;;c~~.~,..~-~), ~.\-.~~ ,.~'~ "..
'iI.Y.'lf "~
f~"'"
.-..".........,.,.,..,...".."".,.--....-
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
,.,.""-"._._-"''''---..~.
RAY D. PETHTEL
COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P. O. BOX 2013
CHARLOTTESVILLE, 22902
D. S. ROOSEVELT
RESIDENT ENGINEER
March 29, 1994
Route 693
Albemarle County
Ms. Ella W. Carey
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
County Office Building
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA. 22902
Dear Ms. Carey:
The Virginia Department of Transportation intends to repair the existing
structure over Stillhouse Creek during the period of April 4, 1994 through April
8, 1994.
Attached is a sketch indicating the location of the bridge. Signs will be
up to assist traffic while the road is closed.
Should you have any questions, please call this office.
Yours truly,
.J ,(:\ /
-'Q,L U DNvv.J--, )t\.
F. E. Jarr4s, Jr. J r
Acting Maint. Oper. Mgr.
FEJ/ldw
Attachments
cc: D. R. Askew; G. D. Lipscomb
F. L. Edens
Bd. of Supervisors; R. W. Tucker, Jr.
Ch'ville. Post Office
Ch'ville.-Alb. Rescue Squad
Albemarle County Police
VA. State Police
Albemarle County Schools
School Transp. Officer
C. W. Wright
J. R. Howe; S. C. Dean
TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
\
{-
"
u.
/
\
o
\
NI~lNnm~
I,)
-z,.
o
Ifl
..)
v)
/
-z,.
;oc;:sr
A
c::-
,
\
'-...
'"
C)
s",':F'~
c::-
""O~"'i3
\
./
l..... /;
)/
//
'J
~
NI'O' .l.NnO~
""'T
- "DH ""4M
t{~
A
.r-;/
E'.>
(
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
P. O. BOX 2120
RICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23216-2120
SUPTS. MEMO. NO. 3
March 14, 1994
REGULATORY
TO: Division Superintendents
FROM: William C. Bosher, Jr.
Superintendent of Public Instruction
SUBJECT: Aid to Localities Appropriation, 1993-94
Report on General Assembly Actions Affecting
1993-94 Budgets (HBjSB 31)
Supts. Memo. No. 225 (Informational), dated December 20,
1993, provided details of proposed changes to the 1993-94 budget
due to revisions in the fiscal year sales tax estimate and revised
projections of March 31, 1994 Average Daily Membership (ADM).
The General Assembly accepted the proposals made by the
Governor regarding the 1993-94 budget for public education as it
related to changes in ADM. However, the estimate of sales tax was
further adjusted upward. Therefore, the final bill will contain
the following revisions to the 1992-94 Appropriations Act:
1. The one-cent sales tax returned to localities based on
school-age population was increased from $499,700,000 to
$509,500,000, representing an increase of $9,800,000 or
approximately 2%. When used in the basic aid formula,
this revised sales tax estimate decreases Basic Aid by
approximately $5.5 million.
2. Estimates of unadjusted and adjusted ADM for 1993-94 were
revised based on actual September 30, 1993 membership.
The revised estimates represented a decrease in
unadjusted ADM of 6,479 from the estimates contained in
the 1992-94 Appropriations Act.
Projected sales tax distributions and Basic Aid
entitlements are included on the Attachment. All other estimates
will remain as reflected on the Attachment to Supts. Memo. No. 225.
These entitlements are estimates, and cannot be finalized until the
actual March 31, 1994 ADM is known. While we have confidence in
our projections of total ADM for the state, experience has shown
that the projections for individual localities are subject to
change. When localities believe that they have more accurate
projections of their March 31, 1994 ADM, they are encouraged to
substitute their estimates for those provided by the state.
Questions may be directed to Mrs. Kathryn S. Kitchen at
(804) 225-2025 or Mrs. June F. Eanes at (804) 225-2060.
WCB,Jr./kk
Attachment
cc: Chairperson of Governing Body or Mayor
AUTHORITY:
section 22.1-93, Code of Virainia and the
1992-94 Appropriations Act, as revised by the
General Assembly on March 12, 1994.
I - I
. - . .
1993-94 REVISED SALES TAX ESTIMATE
AND BASIC AID ENTITLEMENT BASED ON
t DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S ADM ESTIMATE
I 1993-94 BASIC REVISED REVISED
ADJUSTED COMPOSITE AID SALES TAX BASIC AID
DI\ ISION ADM INDEX PER PUPIL ESTIMATE ENTITLEM ENT
001 AC COMACK 5,407 0.3087 2,893 2,159,274 9,320,920
002 AL aEMARLE 10,425 0.5324 2.874 5,152,009 11,600,895
003 AL ~EGHANV 2,418 0.2526 2.904 1,104,912 4,422,336
004 A~ EllA 1.688 0.3111 2,984 786,891 2,927,895
005 A~ HERST 4,601 0.2785 2,949 2,268,333 8,152,962
006 AP POMATTOX 2,291 0.2686 2,935 1,065,905 4,138,393
007 AI L1NGTON 16,146 0.8000 2.933 9,767,881 7,517,667
008 A GUST A 1 0.254 0.3289 2,865 4.137,050 16,939,007 I
009 BA rrH 862 0.8000 3,104 334,339 468,262 :
010 BE OFORO 8,264 0.3589 2,874 3,856.046 I
12,754.486
011 BL I\NO 1,046 0.2054 3,591 456,930 2,621,589
012 BC TETOURT 4,265 0.3391 2.907 2,179.176 6,753,855
013 BF UNSWICK 2,531 0.2463 2,955 1,339,745 4,627,2361
014 BU CHANAN 5,707 0.2331 2.833 3,549.569 9,677,022 I
015 BU CKINGHAM 2,0751 0.2728 3,020 1,023,715 3,812.5531
016 C~ MPBELL 8,356 0.2806 2,868 3,958,736 14,392,5121
017 C~ ROLlNE 3,579 0.3162 2,902 1,638.660 5,981,608
018 C~ RROLL 3,930 0.2415 3,169 1,908,520 7,998,876
019 CI- ARLES CITY 1,055 0.3293 3,085 450.960 1,880.452
020 C ARLOTTE 2,100 0.2401 2,981 932,568 4,048,392
021 CI- ESTERFIELO 47,855 0.3869 2,819 22.538.048 68,891,102
022 C I\RKE 1,747 0.5445 2.999 845,003 2,001,581
023 CF IAIG 681 0.2858 3,022 292,945 1,260,589
024 CL LPEPER 5,025 0.4296 I 2,884 2,436,696 6,876,402
025 CL MBERLANO 1,152 0.2939 3,007 747,089 1,918,456
026 Ol( ~KENSON 3.301 0.2043 2,898 1,628,312 6,316,255
027 01 UWIOOIE 3,765 0.2756 2,922 1,559,852 6,839,407
028 ES pEX 1.578 ' 0.4102 2,977 760.224 2,322,327
029 FA RFAX 131,304 0.7576 3,014 67,056,913 79,675,266
030 FA ~QUIER 8,490 0.6863 2,820 4,042,719 6,242,342
031 FU pVO 1,815 0.2888 3,014 913,861 3,240,618
032 FL VVANNA 2,365 0.3537 2,904 1,045,606 3,762,987
033 FR I\NKLlN 6.399 0.3398 2,850 3,015,422 10,049,385
034 FR ::OERICK 8,908' 0.4100 2,782 4,020,032 12,249,594
035 GI ES 2.588 0.2834 2,930 1,233,075 4,550,242
036 GL PUCESTER 6,235 0.3223 2,864 2,976,017 10,084,869
037 GC OCHLANO 1,738 0.6170 3,036 899,532 1,676.405
038 GR fA,VSON 2,205 0.2391 3,261 1,453.182 4.365,529
039 GR EENE 2,153 0.3028 2,998 970,778 3,823.386
040 GR EENSVILLE 1,737 0.2211 2.931 839.828 3,311,352
041 HA ~IFAX 5,160 0.2238 2,853 2,454,607 9.521,547
042 HA NOVER 12,835 0.4540 2,825 5,796,408 16,632,507
043 HE NRICO 34,985 0.4953 2.812 16,666,812 41,239,546
044 HE NRV 9,079 0.2901 2,821 4,581.642 14,929,351
-,
1993-94 REVISED SALES TAX ESTIMATE
AND BASIC AID ENTITLEMENT BASED ON
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S ADM ESTIMATE
1993-94 BASIC REVISED REVISED
ADJUSTED COMPOSITE AID SALES TAX BASIC AID
DIVISION ADM INDEX PER PUPIL ESTIMATE ENTITLEM ENT
045 HIGHLAND 385 0.4765 3,538 178,712 619,519
046 ISLE OF WIGHT 4,413 0.3540 2,908 2,277,089 6,819,121
047 JAMES CITY 5,911 0.5663 2,853 2,959,699 6,030,331
048 KING GEORGE 2,627 0.36n 2,851 1,396,264 3,852,802
049 KING QUEEN 885 0.3565 3,129 429,467 1,505,596
050 KING WILLIAM 1,566 0.3294 3,001 751,467 2,647,595
051 LANCASTER 1,604 0.6120 2,916 790,076 1,508,229
052 LEE 4,370 0.1641 2,902 2,625,757 8,405,796
053 LOUDOUN 16,800 0.8000 3,037 7,445,815 8,715,157
054 LOUISA 3,768 0.6521 2,911 1,872,300 3,164,619
055 LUNENBURG 2,170 0.2169 2,922 1,108,892 4,097,060
056 MADISON 1,870 0.3793 2,984 953,265 2,871,864
057 MATHEWS 1,282 0.4605 2,924 537,331 1,732,462
058 MECKLENBURG 5,047 0.2857 2,880 2,711,332 8,445,903
059 MIDDLESEX 1,288 0.5457 2,969 617,334 1 ,456,821
060 MONTGOMERY 8,715 0.3518 2,832 4,338,848 13,185,705
062 NELSON 2,075 0.4151 2,938 1 ,057,149 2,947,429
063 NEW KENT 1,984 0.3978 3,024 1,063,915 2,972,279
065 NORTHAMPTON 2,458 0.2808 2,917 1,226,707 4,274,406
066 NORTHUMBERLAND 1,519 0.6234 3,026 751,467 1,448,037
067 NOTTOWAY 2,460 0.2536 2,905 1,201,631 4,437,101
068 ORANGE 3,809 0.3896 2,873 1 ,873,494 5,536,183
069 PAGE 3,410 0.3139 2,862 1,667,318 5,551,991
070 PATRICK 2,647 0.2651 2,908 1,314,272 4,691,017
071 PITTSYLVANIA 9,235 0.2353 2,839 4,404,920 16,680,588
072 POWHA TAN 2,536' 0.3851 2,952 1,194,865 3,868,586
073 PRINCE EDWARD 2,585 0.2905 2,917 1,286,410 4,437,238
074 PRINCE GEORGE 5,215 0.2282 2,846 2,488,439 9,534,393
075 PRINCE WILLIAM 44,384 0.4367 3,059 20,405,442 64,985,225
077 PULASKI 5,215 0.2785 2,867 2,656,405 8,870,843
078 RAPPAHANNOCK 991 0.6990 3,054 523,002 753,557
079 RICHMOND 1,330 i 0.3615 2,955 572,357 2,143,951
080 ROANOKE 13,561 0.3717 2,835 6,395,432 20,137,017
081 ROCKBRIDGE 2,955 0.3325 2,930 1 ,387,110 4,853,419
082 ROCKINGHAM 9,721 0.3636 2,848 4,859,462 14,526,432
083 RUSSELL 4,789. 0.2053 2,855 2,098,377 9,198,031
084 SCOTT 3,942 0.1895 2,964 1,879,464 7,946,648
085 SHENANDOAH 5,020 0.4135 2,911 2,381,371 7,173,979
086 SMYTH 5,3601 0.2334 2,853 2,646,056 9,694,442
087 SOUTHAMPTON 2,7601 0.3083 2,899 1,502,935 4,494,878
088 SPOTSYLVANIA 14,227 0.3881 2,837 5,971,538 . 21,043,523
089 STAFFORD 14,248 I 0.3508 2,803 6,242,194 21,874,762
090 SURRY 1,198 0.8000 3,028 485,588 628,391
091 SUSSEX 1,486 0.3366 2,983 877,641 2,358,451
, I I
~ -. . .
,
1993-94 REVISED SALES TAX ESTIMATE
\ AND BASIC AID ENTITLEMENT BASED ON
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S ADM ESTIMATE
1993-94 BASIC REVISED REVISED
ADJUSTED COMPOSITE AID SALES TAX BASIC AID
01\ ISION ADM INDEX PER PUPIL ESTIMATE ENTITLEMENT
092 TA ~EWELL 8,447 0.2239 2,829 4,235,362 15,259,058
093 W, AAEN 4,540 0.3961 2,834 2,166,439 6,461,682
094 WI SHINGTON 7,374 0.2691 2,851 4,148,195 12,333,995
095 WI STMOAELAND 2,007 0.4044 3,003 932,170 3,034,493
096 WI pE 8,179 0.2016 2,841 3,891,868 15,444,785
097 IW' rrHE 4,394 0.2691 2,900 2,080,466 7,792,954
098 YC AK 10,598 0.3610 2,811 4,629,405 16,078,245
101 AL ~XANDAIA 9,702 0.8000 2,987 4,941,455 4,807,684
102 BA ISTOL 2,495 0.3489 2,761 1,149,092 3,737,056
103 BU ENA VISTA 1,060 0.2273 2,869 495,937 1,966,678
104 Cr AALOTTESVI LLE 4,571 0.5328 2,764 2,445,055 4,760,389
105 CL FTON FOAGE 728 0.2589 2,938 311,652 1,354,147
106 CC LONIAL HEIGHTS 2,587 0.4191 2,745 1,266,509 3,389,439
107 CC VINGTON 956 0.3100 2,826 470,861 1 ,539,249
108 DA NVI LLE 8,309 0.2932 2,717 4,668,013 12,657,049
109 FA LS CHUACH 1,357 0.8000 3,073 599,423 714,128
110 FA ~DEAICKSBUAG 2,079, 0.5992 2,860 1,125,609 1,931,989
111 GA LAX 1,184 0.3433 2,763 407,177 1,880,930
112 HA r-APTON 22,687 0.3139 2,690 11,617,891 33,900,296
113 HA AAISONBUAG 3,474 0.5805 2,779 1,673,686 3,347,845
114 HC PEWELL 4,089, 0.2722 2,723 1,889,017 6,728,751
115 LY NCHBUAG 9,294 0.3706 2,791 4,377,058 13,571,435
116 M.A ATINSVILLE 2,781 0.3642 2,818 1,262,131 4,180,211
117 NE WPOAT NEWS 30,529 0.2952 2,796 16,062,215 48,840,433
118 NC AFOLK 34,795 0.2952 2,713 19,591,087 52,724,501
119 NC ATON 877 0.2596 2,818 409,566 1,526,572
120 PE ""EASBUAG 6,134 0.2823 2,733 2,935,817 9,924,646
121 PO ATSMOUTH 1 7,770 0.2489 2,767 8,265,742 30,722,880
122 RA DFOAD 1,472 0.3276 2,649 623,304 2,202,799
123 AI HMOND CITY 26,269 0.4874 2,740 14,991,534 29,210,781
124 AO ~NOKE CITY 12,749 0.4157 2,784 7,009,184 16,643,220
126 ST r.UNTON 2,975 0.3773 2,710 1,507,313 4,081,759
127 SU ;-FOLK 9,346 0.3127 2,859 5,175,094 14,807,961
128 VIF GINIA BEACH 73,551 0.3503 2,797 35,003,729 110,915,756
130 W.A YNESBORO 2,775 0.4243 2,672 1 ,291,186 3,525,365
131 WI L1AMSBUAG 698 0.8000 2,920 381,306 331,371
132 WI ~CHESTEA 3,156 0.5873 2,712 1 ,506,119 2,910,754
133 SO WTH BOSTON 1,353 0.2768 2,694 606,985 2,197,079
134 FA IRFAX CITY 2,402 0.8000 3,089 1,258,150 1,232,326
135 FA! l'NKLlN CITY 1,753, 0.2610 2,788 614,547 3,157,612
136 CH l=SAPEAKE CITY 32,828 0.3379 2,780 15,695,636 50,032,384
137 LE) INGTON 661 0.3929 2,741 296,925 919,681
138 EM J:lOAIA 1,024 0.3216 2,906 482,404 1,691,482
139 SA EM 3,735 0.4343 2,767 1,630,700 4,923,878
-
1993-94 REVISED SALES TAX ESTIMATE
AND BASIC AID ENTITLEMENT BASED ON
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S ADM ESTIMATE
1993-94 BASIC REVISED REVISED
ADJUSTED COMPOSITE AID SALES TAX BASIC AID
DIVISION ADM INDEX PER PUPIL ESTIMATE ENTITLEMENT
140 BEDFORD CITY 956 0.3533 2,897 435,835 1,509,202
142 POQUOSON 2,387 0.3092 2,837 1,061,129 3,945,014
143 MANASSAS CITY 5,305 0.6134 3,068 2,470,528 5,337,095
144 MANASSAS PARK 1,361 0.3146 3,116 677,833 2,442,110
202 COLONIAL BEACH 611 0.2988 2,994 228,465 1,122,529
207 WEST POINT 690 0.3296 2,881 248,764 1,165,910
TOTAL 1,034,975 $509,499,999 $1,388,856,928
'I I .' .~
i_I, (. (pi
_~__L?"7-1 c;- .
CfL_~_::r:::{p_>J .;
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
.. P. O. BOX 2120
) RICHMOND, VA 23216-2120
Supts. Memo. NO.4
March 15, 1994
EGULATORY
Aid to Localities Appropriations, 1994-96 Biennium
0: Division Superintendents
ROM: William C. Bosher, Jr.,
Superintendent of Public Instruction
As required by Section 22,1-93 of the Code of Virainia, we are hereby submitting
I stimates to be used for budgetary purposes relative to the Basic School Aid Formula" for
chool years 1994-95 and 1995-96. Aid to locality estimates are based on the 1994-96 qudget
dopted on March 12, 1994 by the General Assembly, which is subject to final approval by the
overnor.
The first priority funded in the public education budget is the implementation of
e recommendations of the Commission on Equity in Public Education. As previously outlined
you in Supts. Memo. No. 31 (Informational), dated February 21, 1994, these recommendations
cus on lowering class sizes in the primary grades, providing programs for at-risk four-year-olds,
roviding additional technology to support educational programs, and funding a parental
i volvement summit. These programs are designed to address concerns over educational
pportunity and achievement among Virginia's school children. All parties involved have been
ommitted to developing programs and funding mechanisms that would result in meaningful
hanges in the educational program provided in our schools. The programs have been designed
target resources based on specific student characteristics, where research indicates a positive
i pact on student achievement will be realized. These programs will be offered on an incentive
asis with a local match requirement. To receive the state dollars school divisions will have to
i plement the programs and provide the services. Those that do not want to participate will not
eceive funding.
All parties involved worked diligently to ensure that additional mandates were not
laced on the public schools. However, in light of the demands which have been placed on the
I gislature and others to address educational opportunities, it is now incumbent upon local
overnment and local school divisions to take the next steps to address these concerns by
king advantage of these funding opportunities. Significant flexibility has been included in these
i itiatives to assist local divisions in implementing the programs. For example, the lowering of
he kindergarten through grade 3 ratios will be monitored as a block, rather than at individual
rade levels, and will allow divisions to include resource teachers dedicated to art, music,
hysical education, and reading. This will reduce the demands on already limited facilities in
any divisions. Also, the technology initiative is included to provide a base level of services for
igh school and middle school libraries. However, if divisions previously have made that
chnology available, the funding will still be available to address other locally-developed
chnology needs.
There are many fiscal pressures facing local governments and local school
divisions at this time. However, those same pressures face our state officials as well, and they
made the difficult decisions necessary to make these funds available. I urge you to also make
the appropriate decisions and support these initiatives. By working together we can address
many of the long-standing concerns of educational opportunity and student achievement for our
students.
In order to more fully describe these initiatives, as well as the many other changes
adopted by the legislature, attached to this memorandum are the following:
A. Information regarding selected aid to locality accounts which were affected
by final actions of the General Assembly (Attachment A).
B. Information regarding the allocation methods used by the Department in
estimating entitlements for non-SOa accounts (Attachment B).
C. Language excerpts from the 1994-96 Appropriations Act which (1) limits
the use of the state and local shares of at-risk payments on programs for
at-risk students; (2) postpones the 1995 triennial census until 1996 to allow
CPS to develop a projection methodology; (3) directs the Department to
study the feasibility of establishing a fee structure for VA PEN; (4) directs
the Department to conduct a study of the implications of implementing the
Severity Rating Scale for managing the caseloads of Speech Pathologists;
(5) requires the Superintendent to study the feasibility of establishing an
AVID training site; (6) directs the Department of Personnel and Training,
in cooperation with the Department of Education to study the impact of the
cost of competing for personnel in the Planning District 8 labor market; (7)
directs a program of Uterary Fund loans and interest rate subsidies in
each year to finance school construction and renovation; (8) implements
the equity initiative relating to lower primary class sizes; (9) implements the
equity initiative relating to educational technology; (10) implements the
equity initiative relating to programs for at-risk four-year-olds; and (11)
implements the equity initiative relating to a parental involvement summit
(Attachment C).
D. An individualized printout which projects payments to each locality from
state funds (Attachment D).
The dollar estimates provided on the attachments, where applicable, are based
on the Department of Education's projection of March 31 average daily membership (ADM) for
each locality. While we have confidence in our projection of total ADM for the State, experience
has shown that the projections for individual localities are subject to change. When localities
believe that they have more accurate projections of their March 31 ADM (adjusted or unadjusted),
they are encouraged to substitute their estimates for those provided in this document.
I
I
The following general remarks concerning these projections also should be noted:
1) In addition to ADM estimates, these projections are based on current
estimates of program participation rates, fiscal year sales tax, and other
input variables to the respective formulae. These projections are thus
subject to a degree of change as these variables change.
2) These estimates include only State funds (General Fund, Uterary Fund
contributions to Teacher Retirement and Social Security, and Driver
Education contribution to Basic Aid). Federal funds have been excluded
from the LEA by LEA analyses, as data are not available to develop such
estimates at this time.
3) The estimates provided for the Vocational Education categorical accounts
include each locality's share of any allocations for a regional vocational
technical center. Each locality's share has been determined based upon
the percentages of participation provided to the Department.
Again, please recognize that these projections are estimates. There is no
g ~arantee that the allocations will be received exactly as projected.
Questions may be directed to Mrs. Kathryn S. Kitchen, Division Chief of
A~ministrative Support Services at (804) 225-2025 or to Mrs. June F. Eanes, Budget Director at
(E 04) 225-2060.
VI CB,Jr./kk
A~achments
c ::;: Chairperson of Governing Body or Mayor
AUTHORITY: Section 22.1-93, Code of Viroinia and the 1994-96 Appropriations Act, as
approved by the General Assembly on March 12, 1994.
II
I
Attachment A
Page 1
Information Regarding Selected Aid to Locality Accounts
spa RELATED CHANGES
A The estimate of the one-cent state sales and use tax has been increased in 1994-95 by
$400,000 and deaeased by $1.4 million in 1995-96. Therefore, new projections of $544
million in 1994-95 and $571.7 million in 1995-96 have been used in the computation of
Basic Aid.
A reduction in Basic Aid of $226,399 in 1994-95 and an increase of $792,390 in 1995-96
has been included due to these sales tax revisions.
B The inflation factors used in the soa methodology have been updated to reflect the
fourth quarter of 1993 rather than the second quarter of 1993 which was included in the
Governor's Budget as introduced. This results in lower Basic Aid per pupil amounts and
decreases the state's share of Basic Aid by $2,221,186 in 1994-95 and $2,250,480 in
1995-96.
C . The cost of competing adjustment for the divisions in Planning District 8 has been
revised. An additional $5,205,001 during the 1994-96 biennium was added to the
Governor's Budget as introduced to support a higher level of cost differential for those
localities.
C. Funding included in the Governor's Budget for the one-time salary bonus in 1994-95 has
been removed. The funds were applied to a regular salary increase in order to fund in
1994-95 the state share of a 3.25% increase effective 1211/94, and in 1995-96 to fund the
continuation of the 3.25% from 1994-95 and an additional 2.25% effective 1211/95. A total
of $16.8 million was transferred from the first year to the second year and an additional
$648,657 included in the second year to fund these changes.
E. An additional $1.5 million in 1994-95 and $1.3 million in 1995-96 was included to reinstate
Enrollment Loss in each year to recognize a percentage of the enrollment decline as
follows:
Composite Index
Percentaoe
.??oo - .1999
.2000 - .3499
.3500 - .4999
.5000 or more
75%
55%
35%
15%
F An additional $.8 million in 1994-95 and $.9 million in 1995-96 was included to fund the
state share of lower case loads for speech pathologists. The case load will be reduced
from the current 75 to 1 to 70 to 1 in each year of the biennium.
Attachment A
Page 2
G. An additional $9 million in 1994-95 and $3.1 million in 1995-96 was included to reinstate
the maintenance supplement account. The payment will represent the state share of $15
per pupil in 1994-95 and $5 per pupil in 1995-96 based upon the composite index of local
ability-to-pay.
H. An additional $240,000 in 1994-95 and $260,000 in 1995-96 was included to cover the
state share of Basic Aid and other soa costs for ESL students, ages 19 to 21 who can,
under appropriate circumstances, be included in ADM. Students for whom English is a
second language who entered school for the first time after reaching their twelfth birthday,
and who have not reached twenty-two years of age on or before August 1 of the school
year will be eligible for inclusion in ADM and therefore, the resulting state soa payments.
The Department's projection of ADM has been increased by 205 students each year in
response to this amendment.
OTHER CHANGES
A. An additional $60,000 was included to require the Center for Public Service to develop
projections of school-age population which can be used in lieu of the triennial census.
The amendment postpones the 1995 census until 1996 to allow the General Assembly
sufficient time to review the report on alternative methods for distributing sales tax
revenue. In the interim, the Department of Education will continue to adjust the 1992
census figures in the manner prescribed by Section 58.1-638D of the Code.
B. The methodology used to reimburse localities for the state share of tuition costs for
special education regional programs was revised. The state share in each year will be
calculated using the soa composite index (computed at a state nominal share of 55%),
rather than the composite index computed at a state share of 60% previously used. This
change reduces the state's share by $1.3 million in 1994-95 and $1.6 million in 1995-96.
C. A reduction of $126,966 in 1994-95 and $219,418 in 1995-96 was made as a result of
adjusting the hourly rate of reimbursement on homebound instruction to reflect the salary
increases included in the budget as amended and computing the reimbursement using
the composite index rather than the categorical 60% previously used.
D. An amendment was included which provides for a continuing funding methodology for
the regional alternative education programs. This methodology will provide for the
incremental costs of the program operations based on the composite index. Existing
funds will be sufficient to provide for the four programs currently in operation and fund
two new programs in 1994-95 and one additional program in 1995-96.
E. An additional $165,815 in 1994-95 and $1 n,816 in 1995-96 was included to cover the
state share of increasing ESL enrollments.
F. An additional $194,672 in 1994-95 and $141,581 in 1995-96 was included to be used for
a Reading Recovery Training Site, program planning, and development support for local
school divisions.
I
I
Attachment A
Page 3
~. An additional $50,000 in 1994-95 and $25,000 in 1995-96 was included to support a pilot
regional purchasing consortium in Souths ide Virginia. Participating localities will include
those divisions in Superintendent's Regional Study Group VIII.
H. An additional $200,000 in 1994-95 and $100,000 in 1995-96 was included for the
Southwest Virginia Education Consortium. In 1994-95, up to $125,000 of the additional
funds may be used as matching funds for a TV A grant for technology improvements for
Tech-Prep programs. The remaining first year funds and the second year increase may
be used to expand programming to include Bland, Carroll, Grayson, Wythe, and Galax.
An additional $17,600 in each year was included to serve an additional 44 students in the
Alexandria Project Discovery Program.
~. An additional $622,706 each year was included to provide for the state share of 600
students at the Richmond Governor's School. In addition, $31,604 in 1994-95 and
$54,780 in 1995-96 was included to allow for Halifax County to participate in the
Southside Governor's School. Also included was $8,061 in 1994-95 and $31,867 in 1995-
96 to support the state's share of approved enrollment increases in the Southwest Virginia
Governor's School.
1<. An additional $50,000 was included in the first year to provide assistance to the
Accomack School/Community Health Center program. In addition, $45,000 each year
was included to allow the Department to contract with Norfolk Public Schools for a School
Health Coordinator.
As a result of the passage of legislation, additional revenues in the amount of $8.6 million
in 1995-96 will be generated in the Uterary Fund. These revenues will allow additional
direct loans to be made during that year. Assuming revenue projections are accurate,
this action, in conjunction with the Governor's Budget as introduced, will allow for
approximately $35 to $40 million of projects to be funded in 1994-95 and an additional
$109 million in 1995-96, through a combination of subsidies and loans.
M. $490,800 in 1994-95 and $333,744 in 1995-96 was included to establish pilot AVID
programs (Advancement Via Individual Determination) in the cities of Newport News,
Norfolk, and Richmond. These programs are designed to prepare middle and high
school low-income, minority students for college eligibility and success in college once
they are enrolled. In order to participate, localities are required to provide a match for
these funds based on the composite index.
N. An additional $1.4 million was included in 1995-96 to provide for the state share of an
extended school day homework assistance program for at-risk children in grades 3
through 5. Schools with at least 60% of students qualifying for free lunch are eligible to
receive these incentive funds. The school day is extended one hour, 4 days each week.
Attachment B
Page 1
Information Regarding Allocation Methods for Non-SOa Accounts
uch of the funding contained in the "categorical" accounts is based upon prior year data, i.e.
e penditures made by local school divisions in the preceding fiscal year. Therefore, any
p ojections made by the Department of Education for an upcoming year are subject to wide
v riation based upon program participation rates and other local variables. In order to provide
a much information as possible, we have attempted to estimate payments as follows:
R medial Summer School
P yments for remedial summer school in 1993-94 were prorated at approximately 46% of the
s ate share due to larger than anticipated student enrollments. The final budget for 1994-96
i eludes an additional $4.1 million in 1994-95 and $4.2 million in 1995-96 to pay the state share
o these costs based on projected enrollments. Anticipated payments for 1994-95 and 1995-96
a e based on enrollments from 1993-94 and at the state share of $292 per student.
E fish as a Second Lan ua e
P yments for ESL in 1994-96 have been based on enrollments of ESL students in the school
d visions in the fall of 1993. The payments are based on the state share of 9 positions per 1,000
E L students.
V cational Education Cate erical
urrent year entitlements were provided to you via Supts. Memo. No. 232 (Informational), dated
ecember 17, 1993. Projected entitlements for 1994-95 and 1995-96 have been level funded
fr m the 1993-94 year. These projections include the locality's share of any allocations for a
r gional vocational technical center. Please remember, however, that any major changes in local
p ograms from 1992-93 to 1993-94 could cause major variations in these projections.
E titlements in 1994-96 will be based upon a percentage of local expenditures for (1) extended
c ntracts, (2) principals and assistant principals of both regional vocational technical centers and
v cational centers operated by a single locality, (3) vocational adult instructor salaries to include
f II-time, part-time and supplements. In addition, each locality will receive an equipment
e titlement based upon the number of students participating in vocational courses, with a
inimum of $1 ,000.
Attachment B
Page 2
Special Education Cateaorical
Homebound - The 1993-94 entitlement was based on actual expenditures for homebound
instruction during the 1992-93 school year. Proposed allocations for 1994-95 and 1995-96 have
been based upon a 2% increase in the number of hours of homebound instruction, an increase
in the salary cap based upon the increases funded in the budget for teacher salaries, and
equalized based upon the composite index of ability-to-pay. This represents a major policy
change by the General Assembly to fund homebound instruction on the composite index rather
than reimbursing all school divisions at a 60% categorical rate. However, any major changes in
the level of homebound instruction provided from one year to the next can affect the proposed
allocations.
Hospitals, Clinics, Detention Homes - For those localities which, under contract with the
Department, provide educational programs in the state-operated programs, allocations represent
an estimate of the contractual services. The Department will provide additional information to
those localities within the next several weeks.
Regional Tuition - Proposed allocations for 1994-95 and 1995-96 have been increased from 1993-
94 projected levels based on the percentage increase in the statewide appropriation. It is
important to remember that state reimbursement in any year is based upon the second semester
payments from the prior year and first semester payments from the current year. Localities can
better estimate state reimbursement for this account by calculating on a child by child basis the
tuition rate charged times the state share of the appropriate composite index. Beginning in 1994-
95, regional tuition will be reimbursed using the composite index computed at a state nominal
share of 55% (the same index as all soa accounts), rather than the index computed at a state
nominal share of 60%.
Inservice - Inservice allocations are now made on a regional basis, with the funds paid directly
to the division serving as the fiscal agent for the region. For 1994-95 and 1995-96 there are no
anticipated changes in this arrangement. Therefore, localities serving as fiscal agents should
include in each year approximately the same amount as received in the 1993-94 year.
Adult Education
The projected payments for 1994-95 and 1995-96 have been level funded from the 1993-94 award
level, as the statewide appropriation is the same. However, any major changes in adult programs
could alter this allocation in the 1994-95 and 1995-96 years.
Attachment B
Page 3
he 1994-95 and 1995-96 proposed allocations are based on the payments made to school
ivisions during the 1992-93 fiscal year. Changes in the number of foster care children being
ducated in the public schools can cause a major difference in these proposed allocations.
ocalities can better estimate this account by multiplying the daily cost of operation times the
umber of days education was provided to children in foster care. The statewide appropriation
i level funded over the next biennium.
chool Food Pa ments
he 1994-95 and 1995-96 entitlements represent the actual 1993-94 award transmitted to you via
upts. Memo. No. 201 (Informational), dated November 5, 1993, as the account has been level
f nded over the next biennium. This funding represents a state match to the federal funds
r ceived by the State. Payments are made based on a flat rate for each lunch served meeting
t e National School Lunch requirements. Any major changes in the number of qualifying lunches
s rved will have an effect on this allocation.
he 1994-95 and 1995-96 entitlements are identical to the 1993-94 entitlement as the General
ssembly made no changes in the allocation or distribution formula for dropout prevention
rograms.
elected localities will have entitlements/allocations listed in this section based on individual
rograms being offered and funded by the State. Any questions regarding these programs
hould be directed to the Budget Office.
f
I
I
Attachment C
Page 1
lANGUAGE AMENDMENTS
~. AT-RISK PAYMENTS
Local school divisions are required to spend, as part of the required local expenditure for
the Standards of Quality the established at-risk payment (state and local share) on
approved programs for students who are educationally at-risk.
To receive these funds, each school division shall certify to the Department of Education
that the state and local shares of the at-risk payment will be used to support approved
programs for students who are educationally at-risk.
~ TRIENNIAL CENSUS OF SCHOOL-AGE POPULAllON
The triennial census of school-age population, required by ~22.1-281, Code of Virginia,
and scheduled to be conducted by school divisions during 1995 shall be postponed until
1996 to allow the 1995 General Assembly time to review the report on alternative methods
for distributing sales tax revenue. In the interim, the Department of Education shall
continue to adjust existing school-age census figures in the manner prescribed by ~58.1-
6380, Code of Virginia.
The Secretary of Education, in conjunction with the Board of Education, shall review the
report of the Center for Public Service on alternative methods for distributing the one
percent sales tax revenue earmarked for education, and make recommendations to the
Chairmen of the Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees no later than
November 15, 1994.
3. VA PEN
The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall study the feasibility of establishing a user
fee structure for all Virginia Public Education Network rv A. PEN) accounts other than
those approved for use in the elementary and secondary public school systems in the
Commonwealth. The results of such study shall be reported to the Chairmen of the
Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees no later than November 1, 1994.
4. SEVERITY RAllNG SCALE
The Department of Education shall study the implications of implementing the Severity
Rating Scale for managing the caseloads of Speech Pathologists and provide a report to
the Chairmen of the Senate Finance, Senate Education and Health, House Education, and
House Appropriations Committees by November 1, 1994.
Attachment C
Page 2
5. AVID TRAINING SITE
The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall study the feasibility of establishing an AVID
training site in cooperation with the City of Newport News Public Schools and submit a
report to the Chairmen of the Senate Finance and House Appropriations Committees by
October 1, 1994.
6. COST OF COMPETING
The Department of Personnel and Training, with the cooperation of the Virginia
Employment Commission, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the Joint
Legislative Audit Review Commission, shall conduct a study of the impact of the cost of
competing for personnel in the Planning District 8 labor market has on school division
salary costs. Specifically, the study shall compare professions that are directly
competitive with the types of positions that are required to implement the Standards of
Quality. The results of this ~tudy shall be provided to the Chairmen of the Senate Finance
and House Appropriations Committees no later than October 1, 1994.
7. UTERARY FUND
The Board of Education and the Virginia Public School Authority (VPSA) shall provide a
program of funding for school construction and renovation through the Uterary Fund and
through VPSA bond sales. The program shall be used to provide funds, through Uterary
Fund loans and subsidies, and through VPSA bond sales, to fund a portion of the
projects on the Uterary Fund waiting list, or other critical projects which may receive
priority placement on the waiting list by the Board of Education. Interest rate subsidies
will provide school divisions with the present value difference in debt service between a
Literary Fund loan and a borrowing through the VPSA. To qualify for an interest rate
subsidy, the school division's project must be eligible for a Uterary Fund loan and shall
be subject to the same restrictions. The VPSA shall work with the Board of Education in
selecting those projects to be funded through the interest rate subsidy/bond financing
program, so as to ensure the maximum leverage of Literary Fund monies and a minimum
impact on the VPSA Bond Pool.
The Virginia Public School Authority shall provide an interest rate subsidy program in the
fall of 1994 and the fall of 1995 for projects that are on the Board of Education's First
Priority Waiting Ust. However, the cost of the subsidy shall not exceed $10.0 million in
1995 and $22.0 million in 1996 including the subsidy payments and related issuance
costs.
Beginning January 1, 1995, the Board of Education may offer Literary Fund loans from
the uncommitted balances of the Uterary Fund after meeting the obligations of the interest
rate subsidy sales and the amounts set aside from the Literary Fund for teachers'
retirement in Item 163.
I
I
Attachment C
Page 3
f . PRIMARY CLASS SIZE REDUCTlON
An additional payment estimated at $37,533,594 the first year and $38,496,541 the second
year from the general fund shall be disbursed by the Department of Education as an
incentive payment for reducing class sizes in the primary grades.
The Department of Education shall calculate the payment based on the incremental cost
of providing the lower class sizes based on the greater of the division average per pupil
cost of all divisions or the actual division per pupil cost.
Localities are required to provide a match for these funds based on the composite index
of local ability-to-pay.
School divisions must notify the Department of Education of their intent to implement the
reduced class sizes in all, or any portion, of the qualifying schools by August 1 of each
year.
By November 1 of each year, school divisions must provide data to the Department of
Education that each participating school has September 30 pupil/teacher ratio in grades
kindergarten through three that meet the following criteria:
Qualifying School:
Percentage of Students
Approved Eliqible Free Lunch
Grades K-3
School Ratio
Individual
Class Size
25% but less than 50%
50% or more
20 to 1
18 to 1
25
22
The Superintendent of Public Instruction shall provide a report on the status of the
reduction in primary class sizes to the Board of Education, the Chairmen of the House
Education, House Appropriations, House Finance, Senate Education and Health, and
Senate Finance Committees by December 1 of each year.
Any funds unexpended out of the appropriations for the Primary Class Size Payments as
of June 30, 1995, shall not revert to the surplus of the general fund. Fifty percent of such
funds shall be transferred to the Educational Technology Payments for inclusion in the
educational technology fund. The remaining fifty percent shall be carried on the books
of the Department of Accounts, to be budgeted during the 1996 Session for educational
opportunities initiatives.
c~. EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
c. An additional payment estimated at $8,287.116 the first year and $6,095,800 the second
year from the general fund shall be disbursed by the Department of Education for an
educational technology fund to provide grants for expanded access to educational
technology for local school divisions. At least five percent of these grants shall be used
for teacher training in the use of technology.
Attachment C
Page 4
b. For purposes of the grant program, the first priority for these funds is to insure that every
middle and high school has an automated library media center which provides access
to statewide library and other information networks. To the extent that a school has
already met this priority, the grant may be used to provide other educational technologies,
such as multimedia and telecomputing packages, integrated learning systems, laptop
computer loan programs, vocational technology laboratories or other electronic
techniques designed to enhance education and teacher training in the use of instructional
technology.
c. Localities are required to provide a match for these funds based on the composite index
of local ability-to-pay.
d. Each division receiving these funds must have in place a locally-developed individualized
technology plan, approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, for integrating
technology in support of the instructional program at the school and classroom level.
e. An additional $500,000 in the first year and $1,000,000 the second year from the general
fund is provided to support the purchase of electronic reference materials for use in the
statewide automated reference system.
f. The Department of Education, in conjunction with the Departments of Information
Technology and General Services, shall coordinate master contracts for the purchase of
the listed technologies and reference materials by participating school divisions.
g. Any unobligated amounts transferred to the educational technology fund shall be
disbursed on a pro rata basis to localities participating in this program. The additional
funds shall be used for technology needs identified in the division's technology plan
approved by the Department of Education.
10. PROGRAMS FOR AT -RISK FOUR-YEAR-OLDS
It is the intent of the General Assembly that an additional state payment shall be
disbursed by the Department of Education to schools and community-based
organizations to provide quality preschool programs for at-risk four-year-olds unserved
by another program.
These grants shall be used to provide programs for at-risk four-year-old children which
include quality preschool education, health services, social services, parental involvement
and transportation. Programs must provide full-day, and at least, school-year services.
The Department of Education, in cooperation with the Council on Child Day Care and
Early Childhood Programs, shall establish guidelines for quality preschool education and
criteria for the service components. Such guidelines shall be consistent with the findings
of the November 1993 study by the Board of Education, the Department of Education,
and the Council on Child Day Care and Early Childhood Programs.
Grants shall be distributed based on an allocation formula providing the state share of
$5,400 grant for thirty percent of the unserved at-risk four-year-olds in each locality.
I
I
. '
Attachment C
Page 5
Any locality which desires to participate in this grants program must submit a proposal
through their chief administrator (county administrator or city manager) by May 15, 1995.
The chief administrator, in conjunction with the school superintendent, shall identify a lead
agency for this program within the locality. The lead agency shall be responsible for
developing a local plan for the delivery of quality preschool services to at-risk children
which demonstrates the coordination of resources and combination of funding streams
in an effort to serve the greatest number of at-risk four-year~ld children.
The proposal must demonstrate coordination with all parties necessary for the successful
delivery of comprehensive services including the schools, child care providers, local social
service agency, Head Start, local health department and other groups identified by the
lead agency.
A local match, based on the composite index of local ability-to-pay shall be required. For
purposes of meeting the local match, localities may use local expenditures for existing
qualifying programs in each fiscal year. Localities shall also continue to pursue and
coordinate other funding sources, including child care subsidies. Funds received through
this program must be used to supplement, not supplant, any funds currently provided for
preschool programs within the locality.
Local plans must provide clear methods of service coordination for the purpose of
reducing the per child cost for the service, increasing the number of at-risk children
served and/or extending services for the entire year. Examples of these services include:
a. 'Wraparound Services" - methods for combining funds such as child care subsidy
dollars administered by local social service agencies with grant dollars for quality
preschool education programs.
b. 'Wrapout Services" - methods for using grant funds to purchase quality preschool
services to at-risk four-year~ld children through an existing child care setting by
purchasing comprehensive services within a setting which currently provides
quality preschool education.
c. "Expansion of Service" - methods for using grant funds to purchase slots within
existing programs, such as Head Start, which provide comprehensive services to
at-risk four-year~ld children.
Local plans must indicate the number of at-risk four-year~ld children to be served, and
the criteria by which they will be determined to be at-risk.
The Department of Education and the Council on Child Day Care and Early Childhood
Programs shall provide technical assistance for the administration of this grant program
to provide assistance to localities in developing a comprehensive, coordinated, quality
preschool program for serving at-risk four-year~ld children.
A pre-application session shall be provided by the Department of Education and the
Council on Child Day Care and Early Childhood Programs prior to the proposal deadline.
Attachment C
Page 6
The Department shall provide interested localities with information on models for service
delivery, methods of coordinating funding streams, such as funds to match federal IV-A
child care dollars, to maximize funding without supplanting existing sources of funding
for the provision of services to at-risk four-year-old children. A priority for technical
assistance in the design of programs shall be given to localities where the majority of the
at-risk four-year-old population is currently unserved.
11. Parental Involvement Summit
$50,000 from the general fund the first year is provided for an education summit on
parental involvement in education. The summit shall be led by the Virginia Congress of
Parents and Teachers with the cooperation of the Superintendent of Public Instruction,
the Virginia Association of Elementary School Principals, the Virginia Association of
Secondary School Principals, the Virginia Association of School Superintendents, the
Virginia Education Association, the Virginia Middle School Association, the Virginia School
Boards Association, and others designated by the Superintendent of Public Instruction.
The summit shall:
a. Determine the current extent of parental involvement in the public schools and the
ways in which they are involved;
b. Evaluate the pre-service and in-service preparation and training of educators in
working with parents and the community, particularly with parents of at-risk
children;
c. Identify the benefits of and obstacles to parental participation in education;
d. Inventory parental involvement programs and services in the state, and review
such model programs in other states; and
e. Develop recommendations for programs and incentives to encourage parental
participation.
The summit shall report its findings and recommendations by November 1, 1994 to the
Board of Education, the Chairmen of the House Education and Senate Education and
Health Committees and the 1995 Session of the General Assembly.
!
I
""
C')
'"
~
z
o
.....
o
.....
~
....
.::z:C')m-
<i~:;;~
ommn
~~il~
;l'l;iinz
:lCC')
~enn '"
en ....~
enennoz
n,... '" ~
en:IC~m
~8~Z:
z....'"
~ ~
N
N
~
~
CD
~
N
N
N
..."
N
000000
N
~
VI
~
~
N
CD
~
000000
""
~.....
en :IC
m
en
om
m
z~
..... '"
m
::::
mz
on
m
z
z .....
.....<
:IC m
m
...
~i
"'tlO
.....en
en
.....
:IC
z~
m .....
~en
n
:IC
8
....
o
:5
en
i
en
~
-<
'"
m
n
m
;!Ii
o
.....
:IC
enm
..... '"
~
.....
m
oen
",n
'i:IC
e~
.....
~~~
'"
o
c..
m
n
.....
-<
m
en
"'"
C;~
enc
~ ,... ::a :z ::z:
~""'~5li
"'tl m
o ClD
~~e
.... .... z
eno
.....
c
-
.....
i
~-o ~
_N _..." _-0 _CD _0-
N;Sl~~ ~
0~~~~0;Sl
N
N
~-o ~
..N ..~ ....0 ..- 0-.
~;Sl~~ ~
O""'~NVlOO
C')en<
....en'"
en
..."CD
~ ~ ~
- - -
~~~
~~..."
_~ ? _e3
~~~
~~..."
!G~:;:f':\
mn....z
n~ m
..... 0
~
....i ~
m~
0....
nm
~o
.....
n
~
.....
VI~-o
_..." _0- _0
~~::
CSNo-
VI~-o
.."""4..0-. ..N
..."CD-o
-oOCD
o ~ ~
z
i
z
en
.....
'"
c
n
.....
i
~
....
o
o
....
....
~
'"
en
i
m
'"
en
n
8
....
f':\~
z
m z
0.....
m
~z
....~
z
i~
m
'"
en
n
:IC
8
....
~
~
~~o-
NVIVI
:!:
~ 0-
NVIVI
. "" "" "" .
. .
. .
. ..... ~ '" .
. m ..... m .
. no.
. :IC '" C .
. z n.
.oenm.
. .... ;1'1; 0 .
: g ~;I'I; :
.. ~ I.
. -<~.
. m .
...... ~ .
o. '" .
..... . .
~. 0 .
..... .... .
. 0 .
. en .
~
~
VI
-..."
N
~
~
~
VI N
~ -..."
~ ~
VI 0 0
N
N
~
VI
o
~
g;~ld
g;~::
~""'N
~
~
..."
C')en<::oC')en
,....cn~m-."
enz...m
m..... n
. 0 m
o~
....
.....
m
x
..... .
~
en
ZZ-)Io
en en z,...
..... ..... en
::0 ::0 .....
::0
z~m
~.....z
'"
z::oo
..... ....
men....
Z;l'l;Z
~ m
z z
n .....
m
enC')en::o::o
~~~~~
mc- m
en"'tl~::oo
.... m
......... z~
>o-cnmr-
x"mz
me.....
'"
-
.....
-<
....
5l
en
VI
~!G~
...mn
.....n~
m -.....
o~
m....i
om~
0....
m
o.
.en
en88
8
. m
o
.....enClD
m~~
x.... en
.....~
ClD::on
~:~
enco
"'tl
"'tl
....
m
z
m
z
.....
8
-~ -~
~~
~
-
VI i::I~N~VI~~N~
_8 _VI _~ _';0 _~ _:!: _;Sl _\t. _'8. _~ _Ol
~i:51~:!:~~~8~0-
O-oo-""'OVl~""'~~~~
.~ -~
5lg;
~ 0
~
VI ~
-
~ V1~Ol~e.ld~8;g;
OO-'.....N~.,...ONO"...VI
~N~o,~i......."i..i..NN
og;~~~~o;g:~~~~
~~~
~~
.....::0 n
-<
j~~
...."'tl
"'tl
....
m
Z
m
z
.....
N
-
-- ~ -0
VlNVI~~o-Vl~
ON~O-o"",~~
N
- ""'-'0
~~~~~~~ti
"'tl
m
::0
~
"'tl
....
~
~
z
.....
en
en
8
~
n
n
e
z
.....
en
VI
VI
CD
VI
VI
VI
CD
VI
n
i
~
~'
~cz
oz
2~
en c..
.....c
men
0.....
m
o
.....
m
z
o
m
X
....
:g
.~
~ ~ .
00 ;;St
O-.~
VI VI
-0 -0
~ ~
00
~~
I
~
~
~
....'V
....::0 ~
~~~
..... en .
i~;Sl
en
~
.... 'V
....::0 ~
~~~
..... en ,
m;e
i 0 V'
en
~
~
~
,
o
:5
en
-
i
o
o
N
~
....
ClD
m
Z
~
::0
....
m
~
:g
~
~
ClD
:5
C')
m
.....
~
eno
~'i
..... .....
m m
o
...
CClD
z -<
o
en .....
:IC
m
C')
m
z
m
::0
~
....
~
en
en
m
Z
ClD
....
-<
.,
",
LJ / elLI
(/~i-,2!jZj2/.J~ I q)
fJosl (Jf.iice fiox .](j(,()()
Richmwzd, I'irp,inia .],J,.](J!
,~._,.'.
,.~,.;..-
VIRGINIA POWER
March 15, 1994
SERVICE - VIRGINIA CASE NO. PUE940008
APPLICATION OF VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
FOR APPROVAL OF THE PILOT PROGRAM:
-ENERGY SAVER HOME PLUS-
To: Local Government Officials
Pursuant to Paragraph No. 5 of the State Corporation
Commission's Order of March 11, 1994, Virginia Power is providing
you a copy of this Order. Please take notice of its contents.
A complete copy of Virginia Power's Application in Case No.
PUE940008 may be obtained from Virginia Power at no cost by written
request to Mr. James S. Copenhaver, Virginia Power, P.O. Box
26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261.
~~---- L 1-
James S. c~~nhcW;r
Senior Regulatory Counsel
Enclosure
.,' I'
Ii..;. i j
.... ~ "\
v_
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 9 4 03 2 02 :; 1
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION ,,; ...
A T RICHMOND, MARCH 11, 1994 RECEIVED BY
MAR 1 5 1994
)~
.. /""",,, ,-. - ,'!
'... I' _ ' .
APPLICA TION OF
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
REGULA lION SERVICES
CASE NO. PUE940008
For approval of the pilot program:
"Energy Saver Home Plus"
ORDER FOR NOTICE
On March I, 1994, Virginia Electric and Power Company ("Virginia Power" or
"Company") filed its application requesting approval of a pilot program, the "Energy Saver
Home Plus" ("ESH + If) program. Virginia Power proposes to pay rebates to up to 2.000
new residential customers to promote the purchase of ESH + homes. The Company proposes
to conduct the pilot program over a three year period for the purpose of gathering data and
gaining experience so that it can determine whether to request permission to make the
program permanent.
Virginia Power has an existing Energy Saver Home program. first introduced in
1982. Today, that program has over 110,000 participants. As part of its ComerVision
program, Virginia Power has proposed the ESH + program to promote even gre.1ter levels of
thermal and equipment efficiency. The Company calculates that the efficiency standards in
the ESH + program should provide home buyers between 24 and 30 percent savings in their
energy bills for a 2,400 square foot home, compared to the bills for the same size home built
to meet current Virginia state building codes.
Virginia Power believes the incremental cost of a home meeting ESH + standards
over state building code standards, estimated to range from $1,600 to $3,700 for the typical
2,400 square foot home, presents an economic barrier to implementation and customer
acceptance of the higher standards.
Therefore, to overcome this barrier, Virginia Power proposes to pay a rebate to
promote the construction of ESH + homes. The proposed rebate amounts to $10 per month
for a period of 10 years from the date of certification of the home as meeting ESH +
standards. The present value of such rebates is less than $700 per participant. The amount
of the rebate will not change over time and will be paid through a credit to the customer's
monthly Virginia Power bill.
A home can qualify for certification as an ESH + home by meeting certain thermal
and equipment standards, focusing on the installation of insulation having particular "R"
values, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HV AC) equipment meeting certain
efficiency standards. Points are earned depending on the type of insulation and HV AC and
other optional equipment to be installed. For ESH + certification, a home must earn 15
points, with at least 13 points coming from insulation options.
In addition to the thermal and HV AC standards, ESH + homes must meet other
efficiency criteria including: (1) the use of water heater blankets when water heaters are
located in unheated spaces, (2) proper duct sealing, (3) energy efficient indoor and outdoor
lighting, (4) energy efficient fireplaces, (5) passive solar design, and (6) reduced flow shower
heads and sink faucets.
The Company asserts that all of its customers, and the public interest in general, will
benefit from the implementation of the ESH + program. The program will promote energy
efficiency, the Company will gain experience and information necessary to evaluate the
program for permanent implementation, the summer peak of the Company is expected to
decline as a result of the program, and ESH + homes will reduce total energy consumption
and conserve natural resources.
Virginia Power further asserts that the ESH + program will not have a significant
effect on sales levels of alternate energy suppliers because the requested participant level of
2,000 homes represents only about two percent of the new residential connects expected over
the three-year period of the trial; the program will be offered throughout the Company's
service territory, including areas not served by alternate energy suppliers; and, since only
new construction can qualify, there can be no stranded investment in natural gas distribution
facilities.
2
Under the Commission's Rules Governing Utility Promotional Allowances, the
Commission may grant approval of programs offering promotional allowances if the
Commission finds the program to be in the public interest.
NOW THE COMMISSION, having considered this matter, finds that Virginia
Power's application should be docketed and assigned Case No. PUE940008; that the
Company should provide notice of its application; that the Commission Staff should
investigate the reasonableness of the proposed program; and that a period of time wherein
interested persons might comment on or request hearing on the application should be
established. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) That Virginia Power's application shall be docketed and assigned Case
No. PUE940008;
(2) That on or before March 25, Virginia Power shall make copies of its application
and supporting information available for public inspection during regular business hours at all
of its offices where customer bills may be paid;
(3) That within five (5) business days of a written request for a copy of the
application. Virginia Power shall serve upon any person making such request a copy of the
application and all relevant materials now or hereafter filed with the Commission in support
thereof. Requests for copies of the application shall be served upon Virginia Power through
its counsel, James S. Copenhaver, Esquire, Virginia Electric and Power Company, P.O. Box
26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261;
(4) That on or before April 8, 1994, Virginia Power shall complete, by publishing as
display advertising once in newspapers of general circulation throughout its service territory,
the following notice:
3
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC OF AN APPLICATION BY
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
FOR APPRO V AL OF PILOT PROGRAM -
"ENERGY SAVER HOME PLUS" - CASE NO. PUE940008
On March 1, 1994, Virginia Electric and Power Company
("Virginia Power" or "Company") filed an application requesting
approval of a pilot program, the Energy Saver Home Plus"
("ESH + ") program. Virginia Power proposes to pay rebates to up
to 2,000 new residential customers to promote the purchase of
ESH + homes. The rebates would take the form of a $10 monthly
credit on the customer's Virginia Power bill and would be paid for
a period of ten years.
For more information, please consult the Company's
application. Copies of the application may be requested from
Virginia Power's counsel, James S. Copenhaver, Esquire, P.O.
Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261. The application may also
be reviewed at any Virginia Power office where customer bills
may be paid and, from 8: 15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the State Corporation Commission's Document Control
Center, located on the first floor of the Tyler Building, 1300 East
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia.
Any interested person who wishes to comment upon or request
a hearing on the proposed program shall file an original and fifteen
(15) copies of such comments or request with William J. Bridge,
Clerk of the State Corporation Commission, Document Control
Center, P.O. Box 2118, Richmond, Virginia 23216, on or before
May 13, 1994, and serve one copy on the Company. Requests for
hearing should state specific grounds upon which the Commission
should grant a hearing. The Commission may act on the papers
filed without convening a hearing.
All written communications to the Commission regarding this
proceeding shall refer to Case No. PUE94oo08 and shall be
directed to the Clerk of the Commission.
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY
(5) That on or before April 8, 1994, Virginia Power shall serve a copy of this Order
on the chairman of the board of supervisors of each affected county and on the mayor or
manager of each affected city and town (or equivalent official) in which the Company provides
service.
4
Service on the officials shall be made by first class mail to the customary place of business or
residence of the person served:
(6) That on or before May 13, 1994, any person desiring to comment on or request
hearing on the Company's application or to request a hearing shall file with the Commission
an original and fifteen (15) copies of such comments or request as provided in Rule 5: 12(a) of
the Commission I s Rules of Practice and Procedure ("Rules") and shall serve a copy on
Virginia Power through its counsel, James S. Copenhaver, Esquire, Virginia Electric and
Power Company, P.O. Box 26666, Richmond, Virginia 23261. (Requests for hearing should
state specific grounds upon which the Commission should grant a hearing.);
(7) That the Commission Staff should investigate the reasonableness of the proposed
program and file a report on or before May 31, 1994; and
(8) That discovery in this matter shall be governed by Part VI of the Rules, except that
the Company shall make response to interrogatories within ten (10) days of receipt of same.
AN A ITESTED COpy hereof shall be sent by the Clerk of the Commission to
James S. Copenhaver, Esquire, Virginia Electric and Power Company, P.O.. Box 26666,
Richmond. Virginia 23261; Jeffrey M. Gleason, Esquire, Southern Environmental Law
Center, 201 West Main Street, Suite 14, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902; Edward L. Petrini,
Esquire, Office of Attorney General, Division of Consumer Counsel, 101 North 8th Street,
Richmond, Virginia 23219; and, to the Commission's Divisions of Economics and Finance
and Energy Regulation.
A 1 rue COpy I J ])./J /).. . · /J. _
Teste: v,,~ J. 1I?f.,,<,eet{
Sf".'" r ~r", perk of the d
. ""'1..." ......ora..I~,.. C"'~r"~',{"",,,,
. .J. .j, ,
5
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
')
()iJ,
Cl:':;;
AGENDA TITLE:
February 1994 Financial Report
AGENDA DATE: April 6, 1994 ITEM NUMBER:
(,P/I' ( 1/1 (",{<' i ,::
J ," ' - ~~ ~'j
ACTION: INFORMATION:
)
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REOUEST:
February Financial Report
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
x
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
r.-:--~
(
STAFF CONTACTCS):
Messrs. Tucker, Huff, Breeden, Walters
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Attached for your information is the February Financial Report of the General and Education
Funds.
General Fund revenue projections are based on collections through January. They will be
revised quarterly after March collections are recorded.
General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time.
Education revenues are projected to increase $219,372 based on revised average daily
membership (ADM) estimates. The State will prepare final entitlement projections based on
the March 31, 1994 ADM report.
Education expenditures are projected to decrease by $208,351 based on lower than anticipated
compensation expenses. The 7 1/2% holdback of certain discretionary accounts has not been
revised.
94FEBRPT.EXE
94.036
's (:,1 ~~ U WI m
'~"""''- -~'';'<-'-..'''' """""
en
z
o
1-1-
<0:
0:0
Wa..~
a..Wm
OO:m
~W~
zU>-
:Jz~
o:5:J
U<O:
WCOCO
...JOW
o:zu..
<:J
:tu..
W
CO
...J
<
~o i
~z J/
a..:J
<u..
U
...J
00
Oz
J::J
uu..
en
...J
<0
O:z
W:J
~u..
C!J
(V)
LO
C\l
LO-
CO
LOO CO
C\lLO CO
~,..... ~
C\l- ~- C\l-
('I) - V
~
-
~
-
j
000
O~
00
6 ('1)-
LOC\l
~('I)
--
CX)
CX)
o
CO
,.....
0>
o
~
~
Roo
v"""o
ooco
,.....- LO- 0>-
co,.....,.....
~ LO-
--
-
~
-
~ [~ iCX)'v~^
- ,.....- LO- 'W
~-
-
V
('I)
,.....
0>
C\l
o
2
('t)
m
I
o
('t)
I
<0
o
W
U
z
:5
<
co
o
Z
:J
u..
o (/)~
W 0..<(
I- ~a:
W <(C!J
C!J a:0
o oa:
:J > a..
lD ....Ja:(/)
"I lDWI- ~
en(/) a: (/)~Z ~
~~ ~C!J~~~ ~
1-- ~z:5enl- en
<~ 3:3:I>-~....J a:
o:a: ~>OO-,O W
a..W(/)a:>zzoa: I-
Oa..ZOw<(w<(1- ~
OOl-za:C!Joz >
~a:I-(/)IQ?ffioO ~
a..<(<(OI-a:~O~a:a:
<~a:l-fbClw3:a:~Lt:
Ol-g,ffio~>-(/)u:zw
WZa:LLI<(~:Jl-w....J
> wa..(/) 1-0> o(/) O....J
o a:a..z....J(/)<(<(wz>
~~U5~U5:J~~~~~
a..Oa:I-IIa:lDLLI-O
<
I
I
j
;
~
o
~
en
z
o
I-
<(
a:
a..
o
a:
a..
a..
<(
o
W
>
o
a:
a..
a..
<(
....J
<(
I-
o
I-
W
U
z
:5
<
co
o
Z
:J
u.
en
z
o l-
I- 0:
< 0
0: c..
W W
c.. 0: ~
o ....J 0)
>- :!; ....
I- (.) >-
Z Z 0:
~ < <
o Z ~
(.) u: 0:
~ ~ ffi
0: J: LL
< I-
::IE Z
w 0
a:l ::IE
....J
<
1-'
zO
wo:
(.)c..
0:-
wC
c..!;
* * * * * '#. *1 '#.
~I'O""'(')CDO~
C\lCD(')(').....~OIt)
..tcOt\it\iocOOr-.:
I'(,)~CD""'CD CD
****
O)C\lC\lOO
OO(OLOLO
Ifi"":..t"":
(oo)LO(O
***
(')0(0
~I'....
"":..t"":
LOLOLO
'#.
It)
0)
o
CD
w
C!'
Z
<
J:
(.)
(')~ (') 0 I (')~
.....LOI' I'
.....Olt) LO
<<iC\l," (')
t:. (') (')
C\I C\I
C
W
1-1-
:!;w
0:"
c..o
O~
O:a:l
c..
c..
<
o ..... ..... 0 ~! CD C\l1 col
...............C\I~O)OO)
...... ('). 1'_ o. I' CO ~ C\I
O..........Ol~fliOlCD
OlLOC\I(')OOCO.....O
"":~"":~(O(')(')I'
~ (OLO ,.:.....CO
~ C\I 0) Ol
en
w
~
Z
W
>
W
0:
en
en 0:
o ~
o Z en
Z::J en Z
::J IL W <
IL _ CJ ::J 0:
....J(/)Z Z I-
~5~ ~zJ:
wo< w-!::
ZI~ o:(/)~ en
wo a: w
,ft ,^ ::J ....J ....J W ....J
~~(/) <<IL< en
....J...JIWa:I-(/)1- Z
<<ILI-WOZO W
OO...J<OI-<1- c..
OOWI-W a: ><
...J...J(/)(/)1L I- W
I' I' .....ILOI
I'0l(')0
~OlC\ll'
C\I- u) I' LO
OO~O(')
Ol~.....LO
M";I'LO
C\I (')
(/)
Z I-
o Z
I- W
< ~
a: Z
W a:
0.. W
o >
I- 0
Z...J CJ
W< ...J
~I- <
ZZ a:
a:W W
W~ Z
>1- ~
Oa: ....,
CJ<(/)...J
...Jo..a:<
<WWI-
a:OILO
Wl(/)I-
zzzm
Wo<::J
CJz~(/)
C\I .....1 (')1
00.....0l
00. I' LO
00.....0
~C\lI'
~..........
1'(0(')
LO (0
;
~I
z
(/) 0
z(/)(j)
Qo>
I-Z-
<::JO
a:1L...J
wCJO
o..zO
O-I
O~O
z<(/)
::JI-...J
1L(/)<
...J::JI-
0(/)0
011-
IlLm
...J::J
OW(/)
(/)(/)
en
W
en
Z
W
c..
><
W
0:
W
>
o
en
W
~
Z
W
>
W
0:
LL
o
W
(.)
Z
:5
<
a:l
(/)
W
(/)
Z
W
c..
><
W
....J
<
I-
o
I-
I-
a:
o
0..
W
a:
...J
~
o
Z
<
Z
IL
o
Z
::J
IL
...J
o
o
I
o
(/)
Z
o
W
I-
o
z
::.:::
o
<
m
o
...J
o
I
W
W
(/)
...
o
Z
:J
LL. I-
...J a:
<( 0
a: 0..
w w
Z a: %
w ...J ...,
~ :$ ~
>- 0 >-
I- Z a:
z <( <(
:J Z :J
o LL. a:
o >- a:l
w ...J W
...J J: LL.
a: I-
<( Z
:I: 0
w :I:
a:l
...J
<(
1-'
zO
wa:
00..
a:-
wO
o..~
eft eft eft 'f1.. eftl 'f1..
"".....COC\lOot
C\l0)..... ('1)0 ot
..t C\i..t . 0 .
....CO('l)('I) C\I
.... ....
efteftefteftefteftefteftefteft'f1..
COOCO....IO(W)IO""C\lC\I.....
CO....O.....CO(W).....C\lCOIOO
McOalcOcOcOcO..tr-.:..tcw)
COCO CO LOCO LOCO COO) lOCO
o
Ww
I-~
Oz
W<(
'J:
~O
0..
(W)~ CO 0 I CO~
IOC\I C\I
Oot 'It
"'cO' CO
CO CO
C\I C\I
o
W
1-1-
:$W
a:~
0..0
O:J
a:a:l
0..
0..
<(
0.....0~.....''''~101
.....1O(W)0)1O'lt
.........""C\I(W)CO
o IO~..... ,..: CO ('I)
0)....0 CO "".....
.....~ 0)_ '" ('I) CO C\I
"""" a) 0
~ CO....
"'....10....10 0.... "".... .....~Il)l
0)",............. ""CO '" 0) (W)ot
.....CO IO.....CO 0) (W) 100) "'co
-i'cO'-i'NO,..:Nc>>ar>....('I)
10 """'COIO...."'O)""O.....
~ ~ "!. ~ ~ ~ CO~ CO~ "'t ..... C\I
""........."''''''''''''.....''''....0
(W) ....
C/J
W
:J
Z
W
>
w
a:
C/J
a:
w
LL.
C/J
C/J Z
W <(
:JZa:
Z-I-
wcnJ:
>a:1-
...JWW-
...J ~a::~~
<(~UJ...JZ...J
g~@~~~
-lcnu.O~O
~ ~
z
o
~ UJ
<( a:~
~Z ::JZ
~O ~UJ
~i= ~::J~
~<( Z ~O(l..
a: UJ Z --'
O~ ~ Ouj~ (!J
<(~ (l. i=>Z Z
!:-Z>-cnO <(UJUJ -
>~~~-l UJO~ <(~
O"::UJ UJ a:
C}Ou.a:>Z >~cna:
<(<(OUJO~!:::~a:W
;i-lcn3:o-a:z(l.UJo..
a:~()()Z~--::JUJu.o
UJ!;2:J:J<(()~~o~...J
ZOa:la:l~::Ja:~Z<(<(
UJ ::J ::J ::J ::J 0 <( 0 0 a: 01-
C}'""J(l.(l.:r:UJ(l.()Z~
I-
C/J
W
C/J
Z
W
0..
X
W
ci)
w
C/J
z
W
0..
X
W
~I
C/J
W
C/J
Z
W
0..
X
W
a:
w
>
o
C/J
W
:J
Z
W
>
w
a:
LL.
o
w
o
z
:s
<(
a:l
~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~
......<0001.0,... 'O:I'I.OI.O.....CO.....O')
....", <0.....00')1.0<0 o '0:1'0')"""..... CO..
zO aiC\io .,...: . lOcO ocricO crir-.:
cn<o o 1.0 CO 1.0<0<0<0'0:1'<01.0 wO
Wa: <0 1.0
Oc.. ::z:W
a:- ....00
We u.U5
c..~ O...J
OW
za:
WW
WCO
::z:0
........
>-:::.::::
coO
e<C
WCO
000
<c...J
wO
...J::z:
Wu.
a:o
e w....
COz
Ww C\I 0::::>
....(!J 0
Oz ~ ...JO
::::>~
W< O<c
"':x:
~o Ow
::z:::z:
e c.. 0....
z i:>-
;:) .... ~co
u. a: :::.::::0
...J 0 OW
0 c.. <cO
0 W co::::>
0
:x: a: ~ 9~ .
0 ...J
0 :$ Ol o 00
,... ::z:wz
>- 0 >- cncoo
.... z a: Oloi=
z < < ~...J<C
::::> z ;:) <0::::> a:
0 u:: a: e _ml~11 mN~Ull ~I Cl)OW
0 a:l .....<0..... COCO o 1.0 CO '0:1'0 COco cn::z:a..
~ W W ~"!.cnCOCl)co Cl)Cl)co.....cn<oCIO ~ooO
W u. ........ .....cncn,.:oco ~ cn- as cn- co- C\I co <C0a:
...J :x:
a: :$w I.O<OCOOlI.O~ Cl)..........coocn~ 0w<c
.... a: " vCl) v co"'" Cl)0'O:l'................. WOOW
< Z c..e ~o -1.0 MN..tu) ...... oz>-
2 0 0;:) C\I ,...cn...... v 1.0 ::::>w....
W C\I 1.0
a:l 2 a:a:l ...Ja..z
...J c.. Oxw
< c.. ~wcc
< WCCCC
GW::::>
z>o
z 0 <Co~
W ::z:ooo
::z: 0 0 OWa:
.... wi= Z o::::>u.
...J 0<C W wZa:
<C 0
WooZ- c.. ....WW
::z:w<c~ x 0>>
W WWo
-0 Z 0 ...,a:>-
W-<i:o 0 a:
O>....~ W W ou.a:
za:z__ 0 > ccoa:
<cW-z Z 0 a..w<c
00<CO WOO
0 zz~- W 0 OOzo
a: Woz.... c.. W z~W
W ....-00 >< ;:)
u. ........ ::::> W z ~<c""
0 <C<C-a: xco<C
00 0 Z - .... .... .... " W ~
...J W < za:~oo Z > WW-
0 oOwz ;:: W G::z:....
0 ;:)za: a: z....oo
z-.... zi=fua..o < _ W
::z: W0:Z: O<zOOCl)a: u. t- . W
it) 0 it) 0 <CCCt-
00 >CC.... i=CC<cCI)ooa:W cc<C::::>
W ...JWW- W o~cc!:H!:HWc.. W
I <Ca:u.~ WWa..
;:) 0 ::::>-............u.o 0 a..>-~
Z ~Wa:...Joo...J Z a:~...J:J:J~...J Z o...Jo
....W Z
W O<co<<c< W ~~a:uu<c~ ::s W(3o
> O....W....a:.... a..
W ...Joou.O....O X zo::::><c<ca:o < ::z:ooo
-<Ca..u.u..... ....-
a: .... .... W .... a:l iC u.....
David p, Bowerman
Charlottesville
Charlotte Y. Humphris
Jack Jouett
Forrest R. Marshall. Jr.
Scottsville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO: Board of Supervisors
FROM: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC
DATE: April 1, 1994 [J.j)V
SUBJECT: Reading List for April 6, 1994
~ril 3, 1993
Mr Marsh.:::Lll
'J /
I LQa<-l"
October 7, 1992 - pages 22
_prigPR it:)
(#12 )
(#1 h)
- 35 (#16) - Mr. Mart;j.n <I /
P. n d - Mr ---B.Qlfi.e.DIlatl,.i I /J!...&...">-
March 2,
December 1, 1993 - Mr. Martin
Mcuch 9,
1994 - pages
~Q8
1994 all
EWC:mms
1 - 16 (#13a) - Mr. Perkins
16 ( # :h3a--)-----enG-.~!I4J;'s_.~- -,Humphr.is
'-J n
Bra. TOOm.as ----. \ {J)-(:g,,~x.
*
Printed on recycled paper
'I. .0'1
__-I
((~i i.' i' '.,
_.1_ U~j -.1{ . /
Ro-..:~
Charles S, Martin
Rivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Sally H, Thomas
Samuel Miller
"-l
'1/) ~
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 Mcintire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296:5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S, Martin
R ivanna
Walter F. Perkins
White Hall
Sally H, Thomas
Samuel Miller
April 7, 1994
r. Dan S. Roosevelt
esident Highway Engineer
o Box 2013
harlottesville, VA 22902
ear Mr. Roosevelt:
At its meeting on April 6, 1994, the Board of Supervisors took the
ollowing actions related to transportation matters:
Agenda Item No. 7a. Work Session: Six Year Secondary Road Plan.
Mr. Martin requested that the Board discuss, during the next update of
he Six Year Road Plan, its policy on the amount it allocates to unpaved
oads.
The Board SET the public hearing on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for
11, 1994, at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item No. 7b. Discussion: Proposed improvements at intersection
Routes 712/713.
The Board AUTHORIZED VDoT to transfer $30,000 from a current Secondary
oads project to proposed improvements at the intersection of Routes 712/713.
he project is to relocate the north/south section of Route 713 about ten feet
o the east and regrade the intersection to make it a "T" intersection.
Agenda Item No. 7c. Other Transportation Matters.
Mrs. Humphris asked about the possibility of a left turn signal at the
i tersection of Georgetown and Barracks Roads.
Very truly yours,
-r:l1tc ll\J [Ovift);
Ella W. Carey, Cle(j
E C:mms
cc: Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
*
Printed on recycled paper
...
~
,A (VI;) L, " ( 1L{ +
GENnA ITEM NO.
Clef. () lf00. Q:'< I
GENDA ITEM NAME 1;, ~ J<L1 5e t '''- h"'j I~i PIc< "'--'
P b I-J-rj Jl1tLO II. I 1'1
Form. 3
7/25/86
-r-~
2..0
N
RT 7/~
c.-q
\
I
1
"
_.~~
.------ -.......
~-z.u.. ~ ~ ~.
\
\.."
"
-......... \ /
~\~ ~~~LI~~
~e-O". €"~ \{Z..~ff\L
~ "e-\2.-N
~R..~~' ~ ~E= ~N ~
. p~~ "eN'
'BL.\}E: ~ R.E<:s-t'"Z.~~~ \'R~~e
B~S~ ~Nb ~~~n~"-
I
"
~.
~
"
t'.
J.u
~
~
f)fc.,z~i,-rd be: s
i (" 9<( ~'C~
-
1,1,..;J 1-
~'~ 11th!
.,;... I~
+=i~()
~~~@~
crf-1 *?lfJ1 p1)/Mf
~ J 1-0 ..
02 24 94 11: 19
313 P01
1Z
'/
. ' '"httM
k '['.. 2../ z5.1:te
~~1/ ~ dJ~ (~,!,'O?2z,~,~
17 r #J~ f:J"" ~Jt.;/ ~:dLt.r Ibb:; tAl
( ~~It. -' I t/'4fM~. .v,"'It - ~.1f.~
~..' rJlll 'p~JJ2/!
'-":...4,_
i,' ,'*;;'
MEMORANDUM
,
,..,.\
PATE;
Chair and Members of the Board
Michael collins, senior planner
Groundwater Sensiti..,i~y to I'cc~icidQ.
2/24/94
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Find enclosed a summary of a two year project to identity areas
in Albemarle and Louisa Counties that contain ~roundwater th~~
is vulnerable or sensitive to pe~t1cide application. The study
found that pestl~ides mi9rato ~o 9round~~ter with different
ra~es in diff~ront areas, so, the report presented to the Board
will show wh~t pesticides have the potential to migrate to
groundwater in particUlar areas of the county. In ~udition, the
report shows where, within sensitive areas, pesticides are now
potentially being appli~~.
A brief examination of Table 2 shows that there is only a
fraction of the county where pesticide application
potentially now occurs that could be reaching the qroundw~tor.
The table also shows tne chemi~~l namCB of ~hesQ peatic1dBS.
R.cummendAtion~ on how the county could work with extension to
find al~ernative pesticides in areas where there are ris~s to
qroundwater qUality from certain pesticides will also be
presented for the county'. consideratiun.
.:{L~ (~~;i, CAI.,.r!.~t(;,~t'f/t: , .1t.~I"ltl1ZfUl (~<.t~1j, f~L.N. Co-!M:?:1' Z~ C"7' ,M.kz. (.-~'f
02-24-94 11: 19
313 P02
r J"
...
EX,j,futive Su.mmar)/.
Evaluation of groundwater vulnerability to pesticide contamillation in
Albemarle County of T JPO in Virginia
Vp:rnun Q. ~hahh()lt7.. Saied Mostalhimi. and Sanja)' Shukh.
Agricult.ural Engine-pring IlP.partment, Vil'ginia Tec,h.
TlUs project Will; " joint cfil)rt l:w.;tween (he TIPD C(lll\lnis~hm (TIPOC) tlM LJlI.: TllrutTl'l.,t1on SUPl'vrt. System~
J..aboralclJ')' (ISSlj, PeparuncIIl of Agricultural Ellllinee.ring. at Virginia Tech, 'r1lc objective or thi~ pfllje\:t was t~1
evaluale Ihe contaminatiNI polentinJ or groundwater by pcSlicides in Luuisa :md AJbemarle CI}IJII(j~.5 of 'J'JPD,
Groudwatel'in '" lbemarJe CountJ ~upplie.~ IIl'tlro,gmatel,. !Ie) ~cr~e"t of the IMAI '''aC.r $l1ppliQlf:. !\Allnt man
'0 ~ti~idcs arc cuTTCntly l'6m* w;~:d in ..\JbemarIi!' C(\UnIY, The ll~~~~l'ICnr of cont~.minaliljll potential, :..~
p~rf(\rm~tI in ,hill ~11Il1)' \Va.'; hllw.d llUU,il1y UR (he 1e,.1('1Ung [')Olellli..1 of v,vlous pcsticilll:!i and docs not include
their lo,u(uIUXbl ch;ll'act.eristics. nl~ Attcnuation :fI'aclor (AF). a scr~.eniJlg IlJI,lc.ll:l. W,LS selected \0 pI..-rf'Clnn a
C01Jl'\t~ wiue ;a.'lse.ssmt.llt of irnundw:lter c~~ntalnirliition JXItenUaI b)' pt:slicidl:S. 11l~ numerli;aI value oC M
. repre$&nts the Cmclio.ll of ~lJrt.,('('.-aprli~ pcslkidc whidl ~:an pOl.I:llli;,llly re.l\ch the &I'l')ljI'lO\l\'I(I.\:I. AF model takc~
into <.Il:\,;UWll rJJ(: $oil, ~~Li.m.\tjc, h}'.1r\)gCl.llCJ~il,;. fuetorn W'ltllhrc~ cpecifi~ chell\ic~l prl.lpl'rties of ~~Ijcidcs. The AF
mooolll.':~~ 4:oupl~i.l with Ccognlpn;1.' TY1formnrion System (01S) to facilit:llc il'S iltlplicntion at the cllunty 1~\'eJ, The
AF model h.a~ certaitl Iimit.\tiOJ1S \..hi~h limir its applicalkm u) svme situallom;. SlrOIl!: S~\il layering and
hl:taogeneilie~ can ir,troduce el'(\)r in lIlodl;\l predictioll.lI, II Sll~)uld be n(lred that Lho AF model l,::Ul JlOl he llllt(l tor
predicting lh~ l.ctUlt) ,cmcenttalio/l ,-jf (lII~ICJdeS In t.l\e grt'lundwllr.er, ra~t'1 it b III bI,; u~ (I) .In ind(,'\ I\~r rilnldl1Jl
the relative OODramlnaLi4111 PlllClll.i<l' lit variou~ pcstici,jr:.s.
R"'~1lI T~
. Lc1nd Use categ~'rics w'Te ide.ntlfj~.d anJ mapped for Albemarle coullly (Tahle I).
. CrouncJWl:lIl.'1 Ul.:pdl W.l.~ derin~ fQr Alhcn\o"rle C(lunly \IlOiIlg ()Vl.~r 1 ~OO well rt>.cl)t\!s front ~'1'I.lIlnd"'a\el' well
completion report!;,
. Groundwater rechargl.: map was derived u:-ing 40 years of rainfall atHI t.l:mpr-rature aal..a.
. Soil pr,)~rt'il:.s were e..;umal~<.I for 63 Jlli:11"" ~i1 $cri"", in AJbemarle C(IUrlly.
. ('Icslicid~ ..:"cmi~:u !>1'(lpertil'~ ,la,,, was a..<;~cluhh;1l fl)J" over 10 IICSliddc$ using SCS/ARSfCF...s pesticide
dat~haSI~
. PesLicid~ wnmmiMlion pCA..:nlitJ WIIS mapped Il'1l' few Jt:lalivety mohile Jlcl>\ichlel$ assuming llHtI pe~.iclde is
applied II) an ~ of the coullty.
. OroundwUlcr cont.:uTI!n:\1lnl\ J)ot..,ntial of pc~ricklts was m;q1pt'cl for few mobUI: IlCsllc;idt;$ in the area'i whcn~
they are aC1ually helP!; used (T3ble 2).
. llw procedure used ror Uns ~tt1dy W<l.1 cvtilua.tcd t)y nf)plyin& it kl l.tll~ N~lmJnl CreeJr. WIdC~hcd Study
(Mo.~tAglljmj. "9)). using R yc."lt:l of monthly monilf)ring results for 21 IlI:llticidts. The I\P prediClions matched
IC2!iQJJably wclllViLh lb. JT'It'Nto!t'li dAta..
Monhorinp, of few mohile pc.~ticides call be pertllTlTlc() to eVal\H\te 11\e nM,in~s of this lilUd)'t 10 make 'I better Ul:t
of th\: findIngs; ~d 1('1 :l..')~li.~ the potemial iml'acl \lr ~"Sucid~li under current tlnd anticipated C~'lIlJ;til)n!l, I1fltailed
description Or finding~ Will be presenlt:l.l i.1l an "pc(Jrning cecMic31 repc.'lrt,
1
EXCC\llive Summary
---------
02-24-9<1 11:20
. 'i
. . J II
T
313 P03
I
, ...
Table 1. Land lIi!'e eategtmc.l'; and thdr acrta!1: in Albemarle C.~lunty.
1.I&od fse
AcsilJcnrlaJ Lawll.~
Po~l1.iaJ Re~;idcndal
T..COnuis
Pine PJantlltion~
Orchatd~ :iIld VjJleyQld~
Plulnu"e
Pield Crops
Greenhouses
Field Nur.~erics
Vqotablcs and lobacc~)
Buildings and P!U'kjIl!; L.ot
Qun,., ~ ;sAd ulldCilh
Hardwood
^trea
2(),RM
2~, 726
1,348
10.327
2,635
lO~.367 .3
, ,881
211
~84
In
!.tlB
::lI:4S
7-,~cUi92
TiAble 2. Pesliddjs hemg u~ed in Alhcrnark County wilh wI1U1Tltnatim I'olemlalllr Vl:ry low to hi~,
. I
Pc:~tk:id" Land u~ I Lund ul>e areas (act'8l';) uncle.. nve C'oDtanlib!ltion
. likl!lihllOd CAU20ric5
CaleiOn' Area Higb Medium LD1f Very l...u~ Unlikely
...... I lUes)
Lawns 2())j~8. 7 I 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.U 2OK~.S
I'or.emial Re:<,'" 2:;72~.8 O.Q 0.0 0.(1 0.0 2572lU;
Dil.;llllll,lil Turt' 1347.S 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1347.S
Pasture 10~3"7., 1).0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1053M.1J
Pield ClOP 7IUJO.5 0.0 0.0 OJ} 0.0 7879.0
'fotal lfi1230.. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1,61191.5
Mct'lull'lmm MethYl Pals1un 11)5:\87..' j_ 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 105364.9
Piclofn,m t'in e ria Il t. t 10.117.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 lCZ.2 10272.9
1...l Y\' f~ 2OR88.'7 0.0 0.0 0.'3 7.1 2081i,1
T'tic10p)"f (Cw-hlfl) PCJt.cl1tlN R.ee. oW 2~71~,8 {},lJ 0.3 3.6 13,5 25103.3
Turf 1.341.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 U,ll IM7,S
Pine Plant.; 10327.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 (J.n I (J32~. j
Total 5S2S9.4 0.0 0.3 J.9 20.6 'sfC!3.fl
.. Potelllial Rcsidl,."I\tIu) lU'eas, t pine PI:1JI~I;,)n~
2
E.~cculive Swnm&ry
..__--,-- a_
( . ...
~J ~
IDENTIFICATION OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION POTENTIAL TO
GROUNDWATER FROM PESTICIDES
IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND LOUISA COUNTY, VIRGINIA:
Demonstration Pesticide Management Study
Project prepared by:
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District,
Charlottesville, Virginia
The Virginia Cooperative Extension Service in Albemarle County and Louisa County
The Information Support Systems Lab (ISSL), and
The Agricultural Engineering Department
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia
Project Funded by:
The Virginia State Water Control Board, through
The United States Environmental Protection Agency, under
Section 604(b) of the Clean Water Act
July, 1993
.
r ..
IDENTIFICATION OF NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION POTENTIAL
TO GROUNDWATER FROM PESTICIDES IN
ALBEMARLE COUNTY AND LOUISA COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Prepared by:
The Thoma') Jefferson Planning District. Nancy K O'Brien, Executive Director
Department of Agricultural En.gineering. Virginia Tech. Dr. Saied Mostaghimi, Associate Professor
Information Support Systems Lab. Department of Agricultural Engineering. Virginia Tech,
D~. Vernon Shanholtz, Executive Director
Virginia Coonerative E"(tension Service, Charles Goodman, Albemarle County Extension Agent
James Riddell, Louisa County Extension Agent
Project team:
Thoma') Jefferson Planning District:
Michael Collins, Senior Environmental and Land Use Planner
Cinde Donahue, Remote Sensing Intern
Bracken Hendricks, Remote Sensing, Archival Research Intern
Kreela Moore) Remote Sensing Intern
Department oj Agricultural Engineering. Virginia Tech:
Dr. Saied A1ostaghimi) Associate Professor, Virginia Tech
Sanjay Shukla) Graduate Research Assistant
Information Support Sy')tem') Lab. Departmpnt of Agrirultllral Enginepring. Virginia Terh:
Dr. Vernon Shanholtz, Associate Professor and E"(ecutive Director) ISSL) Virginia Tech
Chetan Desaz~ Senior Programmer
Liza Fox) Research Associate
Liz Garland) Research Associate
Virginia Cooperative E'(tension Service:
Charles Goodman, Extension Agent) Agriculture and Natural Resources
James Riddell) E'(tension Agent) Agn'culture and Natural Resources,
Project funding provided by the Virginia State Water Control Board through the Environmental Protec-
tionAgency) under the Clean Water Act) Section 604(b).
July, 1993
~
Executive Summary
In the fall of 1992, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (formerly the Virginia State
Water Control Board) awarded $47,011.00 to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District to identify
areas sensitive to pesticides in Albemarle County and Louisa County, Virginia. The project was a
joint effort between the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service in Albemarle County and Louisa
County, Virginia and the Information Support Systems Laboratory at Virginia Tech.
The objectives of the project were:
. To select a model which could evaluate the groundwater contamination potential of pesticides
used in these counties;
. To construct environmental, chemical and land use geographic and non-spatial databases;
. To produce pesticide pollution potential maps for pesticides used; and
. To produce a Demonstration Pesticide Management Study.
This report provides demonstration implementation strategies for the results of the study, if the
methodology developed in the project should be validated. UNTIL THEN. THE STRATEGIES
SHOULD NOT BE USED. The value of demonstration implementation strategies is to provide a
destination for applied research efforts in pesticide vulnerability mapping so that scientists can
develop projects which attempt to meet the public's need for information to protect goundwater
quality.
The strategies focus on the two primary products of the study---areas identified as having
groundwater vulnerable to a specific pesticide and areas with groundwater which is vulnerable to a
pesticide which is potentially applied. These two types of products could provide a basis for
prevention of pesticide contamination through local government planning and through Virginia
Cooperative Extension Service, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
(VDACS), and Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (TJSWCD) public
education programs.
An accompanying report, scheduled to be completed by Virginia Tech in the Summer of 1993, v.ill
document the lengthy technical aspects of the project, and contain maps, data, and analyses about
specific pesticides analyzed in the study.
The intent of the demonstration management recommendations is to provide sample management
programs should the Attenuation Factor (AF) model used in this project be evaluated, discussed,
and approved by resource managers, the scientific community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
These strategies could be accomplished under existing enabling legislation through review of
discretionary land uses in areas which are sensitive to pesticides commonly associated with the
proposed land use. If information from this study and others are validated, the state could
consider relaxing its centralized regulatory control of pesticides, thereby enabling localities to
control by-right land uses in vulnerable areas, and to have some local control of pesticide use as
well.
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
July, 1993
4
. ,
~
~' ne of the most mobile pesticides of the one-hundred and fIfty commonly used pesticides in the
o counties was used to produce Albemarle County and Louisa County example vulnerability
aps. Areas were classified as "likely", "moderately likely", and "unlikely", depending on the
n~merical score or index computed through the AF equation, and the amount of area with
g oundwater that is vulnerable to the example pesticide. The vulnerability maps contained in this
d cument demonstrate areas where groundwater would be vulnerable to a sample pesticide.
I
7b.3 acres in Albemarle County were determined to contain groundwater which is moderately
li~ely to be vulnerable to the pesticide, while 4.7 acres were found to have groundwater which is
$i ely to be vulnerable to the pesticide. Out of the 465,828.9 acres in the county, 75 acres, or
. 002%, were classified as having areas with groundwater which have likely or moderately likely
lnerability to the example pesticide.
I
1~3.9 acres in Louisa County were determined to contain groundwater which is moderately likely
t~ be vulnerable to the pesticide, while 22.2 acres were found to have groundwater which is likely
t~ be vulnerable to the pesticide. Out of the 328,027.7 acres in the county, 186.1 acres, or .001%,
were classified as having areas with groundwater which have likely or moderately likely
vhlnerability to the example pesticide.
Areas which contain groundwater that is vulnerable to the example pesticide were then
cross-referenced to areas in which the example pesticide is applied to produce maps of areas
v{here pesticide is applied to areas that are vulnerable to it. Areas with groundwater which is
uinlikely to be vulnerable to the pesticide, and that pesticide is potentially applied, are classified as
"~ow vulnerability". In a similar fashion, areas with groundwater which is moderately likely to be
vplnerable to the pesticide, and that pesticide is potentially applied, have "moderate vulnerability",
~hile areas that are likely to be vulnerable to a pesticide which is now potentially applied have
"~igh vulnerability".
qf the 75 acres in Albemarle County which have groundwater that is moderately likely or likely to
b~ vulnerable to the example pesticide, 0 acres were found to have that pesticide potentially
applied. Of the 186.1 acres in Louisa County which have groundwater that is moderately likely or
li~ely to be vulnerable to the example pesticide, 2.7 acres were found to have that pesticide
pptentially applied. Of this 2.7 acres, 1.6 acres have moderate vulnerability and 1.1 acres have high
~lnerability.
I
1/he following demonstration strategies are recommended in the plan:
I
Goal I. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include Pesticide Pollution Potential Maps
I
,
q-oal II. Adopt Strategies within Pesticide Pollution Potential Areas
i
Goal III. Educational Program for Pesticide Applicators
i
qoal IV. Public Information through the Virginia Tech Cooperative Extension Service Agents
qoal V. Pesticide Testing in Critical Areas
qoal VI. Suggested Future Pesticide studies in Albemarle County and Louisa County
I
i
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
/l
July, 1993
. .
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................... i
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. iv
Background
Project History ........................................................ 1
Project Goals ......................................................... 1
Project Objectives ..................................................... 1
Survey Scope of Work......... ..... . . . .......... . . . ....................2
Introduction
Importance of Groundwater Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Potential for Pesticide Contamination ....................................3
Intent of the Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Relationship of Project to DRASTIC maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Approval of Project Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Groundwater Contamination in Albemarle and Louisa County
Introduction .......................................................... 5
The National Pesticide Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . . . . .. .5
USGS Delmarva Penrunsula Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Other Studies ......................................................... 5
STEP Projects in Louisa and Nelson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Project Description
Introduction .......................................................... 7
lAnd Use 'Nfaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Land UselPesticide Database. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Groundwater Vulnerability Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Chemical and Environmental Databases ................................. 11
Map Display of Areas with Groundwater that is Vulnerable to Pesticides. . . . . 13
Products of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Demonstration Pesticide Management Strategies
Introduction ......................................................... 15
Experimental Nature of this Project. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Example Pesticide Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Protection of Groundwater from Pesticides: Policy History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Demonstration Policy Recommendations ................................ 18
Goal I. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include Pesticide Pollution Potential
Maps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Goal II. Adopt Strategies within Pesticide Pollution Potential Areas .. . . . . . . . 18
Goal III. Educational Program for Pesticide Applicators ................... 19
Goal IV. Public Information through the Virginia Tech Cooperative Extension
Service Agents ....................................................... 20
Goal V. Pesticide Testing in Critical Areas ...............................20
Goal VI. Suggested Future Pesticide studies in Albemarle County and Louisa
County. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Goal VII. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include Pesticide Overlay Districts 21
References
Appendix I: Pesticide Database
Example Vulnerability and Critical Areas Maps for Albemarle County and Louisa COUIlty
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
Ju~v, 1993
III
. .
Acknowledgements
Joel Artman, Virginia Department of Forestry
Dave Beny, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Susan Burkart, American Cyanamid Company
Gus Colom, ISSL
Carter Cook, North Anna Nuclear Power
Mike Davis, ISSL
Tom Eddins, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Debbie Edmondson, County of Louisa, Virginia
Richard Ertle, Gladfelter Forest Products
David Frank, ISSL
Don Gallihugh, Agn'ClIltural Stabilization and Conservation Service
Carrie Gorsuch, Virginia Water Control Board
Cindy Greene, Environmental Protection Agency
Ken Hinkle, Valley Regional Office, Virginia Water Control Board
Patricia HipkillS, Virginia Ertension Sen.'ice
Trenor Hypes, Westvaco Forest Products
Stuart Kerzner, Environmental Protection Agency
Edward Kroh, Bear Island Timberlands
Bill Kmter, ISSL
Marvin Lawson, Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Sen.'ice, Pesticide Control Board
Jeny Michael, George rv. Andrews Forestry Sciences Laboratory
Mark Reynolds, Virginia Cooperati\'e Er:tension Service, Albemarle County
Andy Roberts, Virginia Tech Department of Entomology
Peyton Roberlson, County of Albemarle, Virginia
Alysson Sappington, Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Consen.'ation District
Mary Joy Scala, Albemarle County Department of Planning and
Community Development
Howard Scheurenbrand, Virginia Department of Forestry, Louisa County
Dan Schweitzer, Virginia Department of Agn'culture and Consumer Sen.'ices, Pesticide
Control Board
Nelson Shaw, Virginia Department of Forestry, Albemarle County
T. ~v. Simpson, Virginia Tech, Soils and Land Use
Bob Tudor, Virginia Cooperative E'dension Sen.'ice
Tina Strcaly-Colom, ISSL
Teny Wagner, Virginia Water Control Board
Jack Warren, United States Soil Conservation Sen.'ice
WIlliam Watson, Landscape Specialist B, Virginia Department of Transportation
Mike Weaver, Virginia Cooperative Extension Sen.,ice
Stuart Wilson, Virginia Department of Conservation and Recration, Division of Soil and Water
Conservation
Gordon Yager, 17lOmas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District
The recommendations contained in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of these individuals.
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
IV
July, 1993
~,
'"-".........""...-;. ...,r
~=",..,...
~fl,
"'~br
':~
BACKGROUND
. .
Erofct History
In tl:ile fall of 1992, the Virginia State Water Control Board awarded $47,011.00 to the Thomas
Jeff~rson Planning District to identify areas sensitive to pesticides in Albemarle County and
LDu~sa County, Virginia. This project was one of many funded across the country through the
Enwronmental Protection Agency, under the Clean Water Act, Section 604(b). This section of the
Act provides funds to regional councils to identify and implement priority water quality planning
and!management studies at the sub-state level. The project was a joint effort between the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District, the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service in Albemarle CountY and
LDU!isa County, the Virginia Tech Agricultural Engineering Department, and the Information
Support Systems Laboratory, at Virginia Tech.
Albemarle County and LDuisa County were chosen for the project due to their diverse land uses
representing a wide range of pesticide usage. Albemarle County was chosen primarily because of
its large amount of acreage of urbanizing areas as well as its pastoral rural areas containing estates,
farms and orchards. LDuisa County was chosen primarily for its strong agricultural land base.
PrQject Goals
The goals of the project were:
. To identify vulnerable areas and critical areas of Albemarle County, and LDuisa County, Vir-
ginia to specific pesticides used;
. To utilize Geographic Information System (GIS) technology in identifying areas with
groundwater that IS vulnerable to pesticides;
. To use this technology to provide information to the local governments of Albemarle and
LDuisa County, to the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, to the Thomas Jefferson Soil
and Water Conservation District (TJS\VCD), and to the Virginia Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services (VDACS), so they can provide information about appropriate pes-
ticide use to the community.
This report provides demonstration implementation strategies for the results of the study, if the
methodology developed in the project should be validated. UNTIL THEN. THE STRATEGIES
SHPULD NOT BE USED. The value of demonstration implementation strategies is to provide a
destination for applied research efforts in pesticide vulnerability mapping so that scientists can
de\telop projects which attempt to meet the public's need for information to protect goundwater
quality.
Th~ strategies focus on the two primary products of the study---maps showing areas with
groundwater vulnerable to a pesticide and maps showings areas with groundwater which are
vulnerable to a pesticide where that pesticide is now potentially applied. These two types of
prqducts could provide a basis for prevention of pesticide contamination through local government
planning and through Virginia Cooperative Extension Service, VDACS, and TJSWCD public
education programs.
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
1
July, 1993
, .
An accompanying report, scheduled to be completed by Virginia Tech in the Summer of 1993, will
document the technical aspects of the project. The report will contain data, maps, and analyses
about the vulnerability of groundwater to specific pesticides used in the region determined by the
model used in the study.
Project Objectives
The objectives of this project were:
. To select a model which could evaluate the groundwater contamination potential of pesticides
used in these counties;
. To construct environmental, chemical, and land use geographic and non-spatial databases;
. To produce pesticide pollution potential maps for pesticides used; and
. To produce a Demonstration Pesticide Management Report.
Smvey Scope of \Vork
The project was divided into four primary components:
. Identification of land use categories according to pesticide use;
. Selection of a pesticide screening model for assessing potential groundwater contamination by
pesticides and identification of the chemodynamic properties associated with pesticides as
well as the environmental characteristics of the two counties;
. Translation of the chemical and environmental data into a digital format as well as digitizing
the land use information; ~
. Analysis of the geographic layers to identify pesticide vulnerable and critical areas.
Staff and interns from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, with assistance from the Virginia
Cooperative Extension Service, identified land uses in the counties. Identification of chemical
properties for pesticides and the environmental characteristics of the region was conducted by the
Agricultural Engineering Department at Virginia Tech. Digitizing of land use data and
construction of the digital databases was done by the Information Support Systems Lab (ISSL) at
Virginia Tech. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District, ISSL, and Virginia Tech worked together
to analyze the data.
Identification of Nonpoint Soltrce Poll!ltion to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
2
July, 1993
, ,
-..... .~
....~" .",..--4.._.
""'",
'\.
''':1:1
.
.
1
"...
t;;....;..
1.
"
-',
""'T...
INTRODUCTION
. ,
Importance of Groundwater Protection
Groundwater is one of Virginia's most important resources. 31 % of the Commonwealth's
population relies on drinking water from community or rural groundwater (Water Resources
Management in Virginia and the Role of Localities, VPI&SU, 1991). Approximately 80% of the
Commonwealth's population relies on groundwater for at least a portion of their water supply. In
many rural areas, groundwater is used exclusively for all domestic water needs. With the
population growth experienced by the localities in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, the
demand for groundwater is increasing. Thus, it is incumbent upon the citizens of Albemarle
County and Louisa County to protect the quality of this vital resource, and therefore, protect the
health, safety, and welfare of Virginians.
Potential for Pesticicie Contamination
Pesticide application occurs throughout Albemarle County and Louisa County. However, the mere
application of a pesticide is not necessarily commensurate with the contamination of underlying
groundwater. The thick saprolyte and clay soils that exist in these counties can potentially retard
the movement of many pesticides applied at the ground surface to groundwater. In areas
characterized by a shallow water table and sandy soils and thin saprolyte, the potential for
groundwater contamination from pesticides can be much greater.
Intent of the Project
The intent of this study is primarily educationaln-to demonstrate a process, which if validated,
could be used to inform citizens about the sensitivity of specific areas of a county to potential
pesticide contamination. The sample pollution potential maps, contained in this document, show
areas which contain groundwater that may be vulnerable to pesticides used in the region. The
questions the pollution potential maps seek to answer are:
. \Vhere are the areas in which the groundwater is vulnerable to specific pesticides? and;
. In which of these vulnerable areas are the specific pesticides now being applied?
Relationship of Project to DRASTTC Map::;
The maps complement DRASTIC pollution potential maps previously prepared for Greene
County, Louisa County, and in preparation in Nelson County, which portray areas with
groundwater vulnerable to agricultural and residential runoff, on-site wastewater treatment,
underground storage tanks, and solid and hazardous waste. Unfortunately, the DRASTIC maps do
not identify areas with land uses where the groundwater may be vulnerable. Moreover, DRASTIC
is not designed to model the pollution potential of pesticides.
The pesticide pollution-potential maps generated by this project go one step further than the
DRASTIC vulnerability maps to not only show those areas where groundwater is vulnerable, but
also, where there is a strong potential for the application of the pesticide which the groundwater is
vulnerable to. These areas could be called "critical" to indicate a higher potential for groundv,;ater
contamination than the vulnerability maps portray. In other words, these maps show areas that are
IdentiJicatioll of Nonpoillt Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstratioll StrLdy
3
July, 1993
. ,
not only vulnerable, but may be presently at risk due to a combination of land use type, soils, and
types of pesticides being applied.
Approval of Project Methodolo~
Evaluation, discussion, and approval of this methodology must be undertaken prior to
implementation of policy recommendations and strategies contained in this report.
Evaluation
The AF model predicts the relative mobility of specific pesticides under given soil, land use, and,
climatic conditions. It must be evaluated with monitoring data to establish a positive correlation
between predicted and field tested results.
Discussion
The AF model is a screening tool used to compare the mobility of one pesticide under given
conditions from another. The model does not consider frequency (rates per acre) of application,
method of application, or toxicity of pesticide. Resource managers should meet with scientists to
determine the variables which should be considered in the determination of pesticide vulnerability.
Approval
Any model and/or program used to delineate areas vulnerable to pesticides should be approved by
the Pesticide Control Board and staff from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services.
Until thorough evaluation and discussion of the model is complete, this project can only illustrate
how identification of areas vulnerable to specific pesticides could be implemented and should
increase the dialogue among resource managers throughout the state about protection of
groundwater from pesticides through planning and management.
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Del7lomtratioll Study
4
f
!
I
I
ii
:!
f!
II
~i
li
I
I
i
July, 1993
. .
"'1"1:'.
---........':.-.
:.
L
-.
L
...,
<-'n
r
~
,---
'-:fJ
/
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION IN ALBElYIARLE COUNTY AND LOUISA
COUNTY
. .
Introduction
No comprehensive sampling of groundwater for pesticides has been completed to date in Louisa
and Albemarle Counties. There are a few reports and studies, however, which can be used as an
indicator of the incidence of pesticide contamination in the piedmont region.
The National Pesticide Survey
The National Pesticide Survey, conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency, was
completed in 1990. The objective of the survey was to determine the frequency and concentration
of the presence of pesticides and nitrate in drinking water wells nationally; and to improve EP A's
understanding of how the presence of pesticides and nitrates in drinking water wells is associated
with patterns of pesticide use and the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination.
EP A found that the proportion of wells nationwide found to contain any particular pesticide or
their byproduct is low. EP A did find, however, that 10.4% of the nation's community water supply
wells and about 4.2% of the nation's rural domestic wells contain at least one pesticide above the
survey minimum reporting limits. The survey also found that over 50% of all community water
supply wells and rural domestic wells contain nitrate above the minimum reporting limits. Finally,
the survey found that 1.2% of community water supply wells and 2.4% of rural domestic wells
contain nitrate which exceeds EP A's maximum contaminant level (MCL) and lifetime health
advisory level (HAL) of 10 milligrams per liter.
USGS Delmarva Pennin<;ula Report
A study recently completed on the Delmarva Peninsula in Delaware and Virginia by the U.S.
Geological Survey found that 70% of the wells tested in the water table aquifer has detectable
concentrations of nitrate and 15% contain concentrations that exceed the MCL. Atrazine and
Alachlor were detected in approximately 20% of the samples tested. Atrazine exceeded the MCL
in only one sample (Are Fertilizers and Pesticides in the Ground Water? A Case Study of the
Delmarva Peninsula) Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1080,
1992).
Other Stlldies
A study conducted by the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
found pesticides in 87% of water samples analyzed in the Northern Shenandoah Valley (the reader
is cautioned to refer to the study, Special Report: Pesticide A1anagement in Virginia, Virginia
Council on the Environment, January, 1989, for additional information to determine if any of the
detected pesticides exceed the MCL and so would be considered hazardous ). In another study
conducted in Westmoreland County by the Agricultural Engineering Department at Virginia Tech,
traces of 21 pesticides were found in monitoring wells, with Atrazine concentrations occasionally
exceeding the 3 parts per billion health advisory limits (HAL).
The 1980 publication, Ground Water Resources of Albemarle County} Virginia, by staff from the
Valley Regional Office of the State \Vater Control Board noted that no major areas of
groundwater contamination had been identified, although "local contamination does occur".
Nitrogen-nitrate values at 165 sites were mapped in the county, although only t\vo sites showed
Identification of Nonpoint SouTce Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
5
July, 1993
. .
values in excess of the human health limit established by the Virginia Department of Health.
Hydrocarbon contamination was said to have been reported in several areas of the county. No
pollution from sanitary landfills and waste treatment facilities was detected.
State Water Control Board spill data from 1986-1990 was analyzed for this study. No incidence of
pesticide contamination of groundwater was reported.
STEP Projects in Louisa and Nelson
The Thomas Jefferson Planning District and students from Service Training for Environmental
Progress (STEP) in Louisa County, in a study designed to correlate land use and other parameters
such as well water quality, found that 68% of the wells in "smalllot"l areas of Louisa County had
total coliform which exceeds the MCL and 14% of the wells in an agricultural setting exceeded the
MCL for nitrate (Louisa County Water Testing Program, Student Training for Environmental
Progress, 1992). In a similar study, conducted one year ago in Nelson County, it was found that
33% of wells tested exceeded the MCL for fecal coliform in strip residential areas and although no
wells exceeded the MCL for nitrate, high concentrations of wells with detectable nitrate were
found within 1/4 mile of agricultural land uses (Nelson County Water Testing Program, Service
Training for Environmental Progress, 1991). Due to difficulty and expense, none of the samples
were analyzed for pesticides. ,
These surveys, reports, and studies provided limited insight into the degree which pesticides can
penetrate to groundwater in piedmont Virginia. Clearly, pesticide contamination exists in
groundwater throughout the U.S., and in some parts of Virginia, but the extent, if any, to which
these can be used to draw conclusions about contamination in Albemarle County and Louisa
County is unknown.
It is known that nitrates and coliform bacteria are found in the piedmont, and in concentrations
that appear to be higher in areas with particular types of hydrogeological settings (sandy soil, high
water table, for example), and near particular land uses. \Vhether this is also indicative of pesticide
contamination is currently unclear. In the future, it is hoped that the project described in this
document, combined \vith rigorous evaluation, can be used as a step towards additional
understanding of the interactions between groundwater and pesticides.
1 "Small lot residential" is defined as a lot less than one acre in size.
Id<:llrificatioll of NOllpoint Source Pollutioll to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstratioll Study
6
July, 1993
. .
! "
...M, ..
~.tP ~~,._.,
,..." .. dl"~"r......*.~..
~c,.,..c,~ _,.,?~
,.-.~
t."
I ,_,'"
......{
'..,'"
'\""~
J '.
/
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
I
I
. .
Introduction
In the Thomas Jefferson Planning District, previous groundwater studies (Greene County and
Louisa County DRASTIC maps) have been produced which identify areas that are vulnerable to
specific pollutants. These studies show areas that have a potential to be contaminated if a certain
kind of pollutant were to be introduced at the surface. What these studies did not identify were
existing land uses which might be already introducing these potential pollutants to the land surface.
In this project, data was collected to enable the mapping of areas which are thought to be sensitive
or "vulnerable" to specific pesticides or groups of pesticides. Because pesticides are made of
different chemicals, they move through the soil at different rates. Therefore, groundwater
vulnerability must be expressed in terms of specific pesticides. The same area which may be
vulnerable to one pesticide may not be vulnerable to another. Vulnerability is therefore, pesticide-
specific. This project also was designed to identify those areas which are vulnerable to a pesticide
and that pesticide is now being used by the landowner. To identify the type and location of
pesticides being used, land use maps were created for the two counties. The land uses were
grouped according to pesticide usage. Land classifications which use the same pesticides were
grouped together.
Land Use Maps
To determine areas where pesticides have the potential to be applied, land uses, grouped
according to their similarity of pesticides used, were mapped. Albemarle County and Louisa
County Extension Agents were consulted to help develop appropriate land use classification
schemes. National High Altitude Infrared Photography (NHAP) at a scale of 1" =24,000" available
from the Soil Conservation Service in Albemarle County and Louisa County was used as a
preliminary land use identification tool. Current Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service (ASCS) slide color photography was then used to update the photos. Virginia Geographic
Information System (VirGIS) land use maps from the Information Support Systems Laboratory
(ISSL) were also used to check photo interpretation. This information was recorded on mylar
overlays and digitized at ISSL. Land use draft maps were field checked in Albemarle County and
Louisa County in spring and summer of 1992.
Land uses identified in the project for Albemarle County and Louisa County were the follD\ving:
. Buildings and parking lots-Buildings and parking lots larger than 1/4 of an acre were identified
in Albemarle County. 1/4 acre is the cell size used in the GIS. This land use was not delineated in
Louisa County.
. Hardwood and grown pine forests. and idle land-Hardv./Ood stands and mature pine forests are
included in this classification. Also, fallow or idle land that did not appear to be maintained for
agricultural or other purposes was identified in this classification. In Louisa, buildings and park-
ing lots were added to this classification.
. Residential. commercial. industrial and recreation areas with maintained lawns-Lawns found
in residential, commercial, industrial and recreation areas were delineated. Included in this
database are cemeteries which are thought to be maintained with pesticides. Pesticides used for
termite control were included in this database.
Identification of Nonpoint SouTee Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
7
July, 1993
~
..
I
I
. .
I
I
I
. EX{.lected future residential development areas-Subdivisions which appear to be in the early stages
of development were identified as areas with expected future residentIal development. Only areas
which could be clearly identified from tax maps as a subdivision and/or were venfied as areas soon
to be developed through field checks were included in this classification.
. Turf grass areas such as ball fields and golf courses-Areas with intensely managed turf such as
football baseball, and soccer fields as well as golf courses and heavily maintained areas around
schools ~ere grouped under this classification.
. Field nurseries containing shade and christmas trees and shrubs -Areas larger than 1/4 of an
acre containing maintained shade trees and christmas trees are included in this classification.
. Vegetables and/or tobacco-Tomatoes, potatoes, sweet corn, and tobacco fields larger than 1/4 acre
were classified as a vegetable land use. Backyard gardens were not identified in this classification.
. Field crops-Small grains, soy beans, feed corn, and alfalfa were grouped under this classification.
. Virgis field crops-This classification is very similar as above except the land use was originally clas-
sified by the Information Support Systems Laboratory (ISSL) at Vir~inia Tech. The "crop" clas-
sification, as originally defined by Virginia Tech for the VirGIS project, did not include alfalfa.
For VirGIS, alfalfa was classified as a "pasture" land use. For this project, areas with alfalfa were
removed from all previously identified "pasture" classifications by ISSL and included in the "field
crops" classification.
. Pasture-Grass hay and areas of livestock usage were classified as "pasture".,
. Virgis pasture-This classification was originally defined by Virginia Tech for the VirGIS project
and included alfalfa. Areas containing alfalfa where switched to the "field crop" classification.
. Privately and commerciaIlv held pine plantations-Lands included in this classification are youna
pine plantations which may be sprayed with some form of herbicide in the near future, ap~
proximately within five years. Local foresters and commercial growers were asked to identify only
those lands which they expected to be sprayed. Consequently, mature pine stands were not iden-
tified under this classification and instead are found in the hardwood/grown pine forest/idle land
classification.
. Areas sprayed for gypsy moth-Areas sprayed with chemicals used to control gypsy moth were
downloaded from the gypsy moth database at the Entomology Department at Virginia Tech. There
were no large areas in Louisa County sprayed for gypsy moth.
. Roads-Roads were plotted from USGS DLG-III optional data files.
. Powerline rights ofway-Powerlines and pipelines were digitized from 1" =24,000" maps at ISSL
at Virginia Tech.
. Industrial areas (quarries.landfiIls)-These areas include mining operations and heavy industrial
areas like North Anna Nuclear Power Plant in Louisa County and do not include surrounding la\Vll
area (classified as "lawn").
. Greenhouses-Areas under the roofs of greenhouses were included in this classification.
. Orchards and vinevards-These areas contain fruit trees and grape vines.
. Railroads-Railroads do not appear on the map, although pesticides used by railroads were in-
cluded in the study.
I
Idelltification of Nonpoint Source Pol/ution to
Groulldwater from Pesticid.:s: D.:monstratioll Study
8
July, 1993
Land UsefPesticide Database
The most commonly used pesticides for each land use were identified. A list of the land uses and
associated pesticides can be found in Appendix 1. Information for the database was compiled from
information provided by Albemarle County, and Louisa County, Virginia Cooperative Extension
Service Agents, and from knowledgeable persons working in each land use category. It is
important to note that every unique land use may not have unique pesticides associated with it. For
example, expected future residential development and lawn classifications have the same pesticide
use. Other land uses, such as power lines/pipelines, buildings/parking lots, and hardwood/grown
pine forests/idle land were not identified as having any regular timing of pesticide use.
It should be noted that the buildings/parking lots classification includes only buildings v.ith a
building footprint that is at least .25 acres, which are commonly large commerciaVwarehouse type
buildings. Pesticides used to control pests in basements of these large buildings were not
associated with this classification, as they were thought to be sprayed on the inside of a building,
rather than in a crawlspace type situation where the pesticide would be sprayed on bare earth.
Buildings with a footprint less than .25 acres, would be included in the "residential, commercial,
industrial, and recreation areas with maintained lawns" and "expected future residential
development areas". Pesticides used in termite treatment were associated with these two
classifica tions.
Also, it was impossible, given the scope of this project to spatially identify exact right-of-way
boundaries for the road and railroad land uses. Although pesticides used in association with these
land uses were added to the database, and used for vulnerable areas calculations, critical area
delineation was not undertaken due to the inability to locate boundaries on the sides of these land
uses where pesticides might be applied.
Groundwater Vulnerability Model
Introduction
AF (Attenuation Factor) (Rao.et a1., 1985) is a quantitative index of the relative groundwater
contamination potential of pesticides:
AF [ -(O.693L x RF x FC)/ ]
= exp q x tl/2
\Vhere RF = [1 + (BDxOCxKoc)/FC + (AC x Kh)/Fc]
RF = Retardation Factor
L = Distance from the soil surface to groundwater
BD = Bulk density of soil in Kg/m3
OC = % Soil organic carbon content, in fraction
Koc = Pesticide sorption coefficient in m3fkg
FC = Volumetric water content at field capacity of the soil, in fraction
AC = Air filled porosity (P-FC), in fraction
Kh = Henry's Constant, dimensionless
tV 2 = Degradation half life in years
q = Net groundwater recharge in meters/year
Identification of Nonp0 illi Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
9
July, 1993
. .
The development of the AF model is based on the assumption that:
. Vadose zone properties are independent of depth;
. An average groundwater recharge can be computed given the total rainfall, irrigation, and
evaporation data;
. A Koc value can be estimated for each pesticide based on tbe assumption that hydrophobic inter-
actions are dominant;
. An average t1/2 value can be estimated for each pesticide.
The advantages of the AF index method include:
. Simplicity for ranking a number of pesticides for their relative potential to reach groundwater;
. Less data requirements than other pesticide fate and transport models;
. Consideration of major processes involved in pesticide transport including adsorption, volatiliza-
tion, and degradation;
. Suitability for coupling with a GIS for preliminary assessment of pesticide contamination poten-
tial;
. Suitability for preliminary identification of sites needing groundwater monitoring for pesticides.
Use oftheAF model with GIS
The AF model's utility is enhanced through the functionality of GIS technology. Using GIS, the
AF model, if validated, could be used to perform regional environmental assessment. In addition,
GIS simplifies the aquisition, storage, analyses and display of information; and facilitates the use of
models for land use planning.
AF model data requirements
The AF method requires soil, hydrogeologic, climatic, and chemical data. AF values range from 0
to 1. An AF value of 0 means the potential for leaching of an applied chemical to groundwater is
insignificant. A value of 1 means that all of the applied pesticide will potentially reach
groundwater. This numerical evaluation allows the ranking of different pesticides.
RF factor, as described earlier, indicates the relative transport of pesticides through vadose zone.
RF does not take into account factors such as degradation, groundwater recharge, and depth to the
groundwater; this makes AF a better index of pesticide leaching potential. The developers of the
AF index recommended that it should be used only as a general tool for ranking the contamination
potential of various pesticides. In addition, when historic monitoring data on pesticide leaching is
available, the model could be validated. If the model's output matches experimental findings, it
could be used for groundwater quality management with reasonable confidence.
AF model limitations,
The AF model is not designed to be a predictive tool, but a methodology to rank different
pesticides according to the relative potential to move into groundwater.
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
10
July, 1993
It is important to note the following limitations concerning the AF model:
. All pesticides were 3;5sumed to be applied eqll;allJ: as one unit at one,Point in time. Variations in
pesticide concentratIOn and frequency of applIcatIOn cannot be consIdered by the model.
. The AF model predicts the mobility of one pesticide relative to another, not the absolute quan-
tity of pesticide which reaches groundwater.
. The AF model does not consider fractures, sinkholes, and variations in rainfall patterns for dif-
ferent parts of the county.
. Strong soil layering and heterogeneity may invalidate the basic assumptions of the AF model.
. The AF model is intended for use on non-ionic pesticides.
Chemical and Environmental Databases
Estimation of AF requires pesticide chemical, soil, and climatological properties, as well as depth
to groundwater data. Pesticide chemical properties required for the model are sorption coefficient
(Koc), Henry's Constant (Kn), and degradation half life (t1/2). Soil characteristics required for the
model are bulk density, field capacity, air porosity, and organic carbon fraction. Net groundwater
recharge is calculated using a water balance approach.
Chemical Properties Database
An extensive search for pesticide chemical properties was performed. Most of the data was
obtained from the SCS pesticide database. The information included in the database is:
. Maximum, minimum, and average values of sorption coefficient (Koc);
. \Vater solubility of pesticides;
. Vapor pressure;
. Henry's constant (Kh);
. Half life (t1!2);
. Pesticide typical application rate;
. umd use;
. Leaching potential (high, medium, and low);
. Reference temperatures for solubility and vapor pressure; and
. Molecular weight.
The maximum and minimum values of the Koc, Kh, tl/2, VP, and solubility have been included
apart from the average values to account for the uncertainties involved in the experimental
determination of these properties. Henry's Constant was calculated using vapor pressure, solubility
and temperature. It should be noted that there were some pesticides for which chemical properties
could not be determined.
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
11
July. 1993
Soil Properties Database
The soil properties database includes depth of different soil horizons, clay percentage, bulk
density, plant available water (%), air filled porosity, organic matter (%), and organic carbon
fraction (%). All the soil properties were weighted for a particular depth for which the information
was available in the soil survey. These parameters were estimated using the following relationships
or sources:
. Total percentage of solids = bulk density/particle density
. Plant available water was taken from the soil survey
. Estimate of 15 bar water content = 15 bar water/clay % = k (k ranges from .35 for low activity
clays to .5 for high activity clays).
. Total pore space = (100 - solid percentage)
. Air porosity at field capacity = (total pore space - field capacity water)
. Field water capacity = plant available water + 15 bar water content
. Organic carbon fraction was calculated using the \Valkley-Black method: % Organic matter = %
Organic Carbon x 1.724
Depth to Groundwater
Depth to groundwater was determined using the SURFER program. This program was used to
create a regularly spaced grid from irregularly spaced data for every 1/4 acre. Static water table
information was taken from groundwater completion reports in Albemarle and Louisa Counties.
GRID, a subprogram of SURFER, was used to create the 1/4 acre grid for both counties.
Approximately 1500 well completion report data points were digitized in Albemarle County. Each
point was identified using well I.D. number. A database for each well was created with static water
level data for each well. Albemarle County data came from the county's well completion database.
Approximately 400 well completion report data points were digitized in Louisa County. This data
came from well completion data compiled for the production of a county DRASTIC map.
Groundwater Recharge
Annual groundwater recharge at a particular site was calculated using the water balance model
where:
P + I = ET + q + R
P = precipitation
ET = evapotranspiration
I = irrigation
R = runoff
q = groundwater recharge
Identificatioll of Nonpoillt SOl/rce Polll/tion tJ
GrOl/ndwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Stl/dy
12
lu(v, 1993
Runoff
Precipitation and temperature data was collected from the Virginia \Vater Resources Research
Center (VWRRC). Evapotranspiration temperature data was also collected from the VWRRC
database. Runoff was calculated using the U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) curve number method where:
R = (RL-O.2xS)2/RL+0.8XS
R = runoff in inches
RL = storm precipitation in inches, and
S = retention factor in inches, defined as lOOO/(CN - 10)
CN = curve number
The potential average monthly runoff for each grid was calculated using the above equation as
follows:
. A 42 year daily rainfall record was scanned and rainfall events exceeding .2 inches were selected
and the daily average was calculated.
. Averag~ daily runoff was calculated for each daily value based on the soillland use conditions on
each gnd.
. The average monthly runoff was determined by summing the appropriate daily values.
. The monthly recharge was determined from the water balance model.
. The annual recharge was determined by summing the average monthly recharge values.
Evapotranspiration
Irrigation was assumed to be negligable while calculating groundwater recharge. Monthly average
evapotranspiration was calculated using the Thornwaite Method:
ET = 16 Ld {10TII} a
where:
Et = 30-day estimate of evaportranspiration
Ld = adjusted daylight hours
T = mean monthlYif~r temperature
I = heat index = t i
. i? (r. ) I, ~i'i ;
1 =;. 's-
a = '6.75 x 10-713 - 7.71 x 10-512 + 1.792 x 10-21 + .49239
42 years of rainfall record was used for calculating recharge. SCS curve number methodology was
used to calculate runoff, assuming average soil moisture conditions. .
Map Display of Areas with GroundwClter that is VlIlnerahle to Pesticides
"Groundwater vulnerability" maps have been produced for this document to show areas which, if
pesticides used in the region \vere applied, could reach groundwater. "Areas of Pesticide
Application in Relation to Groundwater Vulnerability", also referred to as "critical areas" maps
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pol/ution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Swdy
13
July, 1993
have also been produced to show areas which not only are vulnerable but which have a land use
where the pesticide is potentially, currently applied.
To produce groundwater vulnerability maps, the AF model was run for the entire county. In this
way, the model shows areas where any of the pesticides commonly used in each county, if applied
in anyone area, could reach groundwater. For anyone pesticide, areas throughout the county are
ranked according to the potential of the specific pesticide to move into groundwater. Areas in
which the pesticide can move readily into the groundwater are called "likely", while areas in which
the pesticide would have little movement to groundwater "unlikely". Unlikely areas are insensitive
to specific pesticides as a result of the way the chemical characteristics (half life, sorption
coefficient) of the pesticide in question interacts with the hydrogeologic characteristics (static
water level, soil type, etc.) of the area in which it is applied. Applied pesticide in the unlikely areas
would not migrate to the water table. Likely areas contain groundwater which could be
contaminated in the future. These vulnerability maps provide no information about the actual
pesticides now being applied.
Pesticide Application in Relation to Groundwater Vulnerability maps show areas where ap~lied
pesticide could potentially migrate to groundwater and that pesticide is now being applied. The
maps are termed "critical", due to the fact that not only is the pesticide which the groundwater is
vulnerable to been used in the recent past or will be applied in the short-term future, but, it is used
in an area which has groundwater vulnerable to that pesticide. 3 Areas in which pesticides can
move readily into the groundwater and have the land use which that pesticide is associated \vith are
termed "high vulnerability". "Low vulnerability" areas have groundwater which is insensitive to the
specific pesticides commonly associated with the land uses in that area. Critical areas were
identified by merging hydrogeological and chemical data with land use data in the AF model.
Both vulnerability maps and critical areas maps are prO'vlded as samples only to indicate the types
of information which would be available, if the project were to be validated at a later date.
Products of the Study
The following products could be prepared for Albemarle County and Louisa County. The
selection of final map products will be agreed upon based upon need and cost. Note that due to the
experimental nature of the vulnerability and critical areas maps, they will not be made available
to each county.
. 7.5 minute size paper maps showing identified land uses in the county.
. 7.5 minute size paper maps showing where each type of pesticide is applied.
. 7.5 minute size paper maps showing underground water level contours based on the SURFER
program used in this project.
. \Vhole county maps of any of the above at selected scales.
. Demonstration Pesticide Management Report for each county.
2 The detennination of whether a pesticide is applied in an area is based on the potential application of a particular
pesticide to a particular land use.
3 "Recent past" alld "short-tenn future" means approximately three years.
Identification of Nonpoillt Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
July, 1993
14
~1
'",
"
~
DEMONSTRATION PESTICIDE :MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
I
Introduction
AF indices calculated in this project, could be implemented through the identification of
vulnerable and critical groundwater areas. Areas are vulnerable if groundwater can be
contaminated by the application of a pesticide. An area becomes critical if the pesticide is
currently being applied to the vulnerable area.
Examples of these areas can be found on the example pesticide vulnerability and critical areas
maps provided in this document. It should be noted, however, that these maps are based on land
uses which change constantly. Therefore, the land use data should be monitored and updated in
the Thomas Jefferson Planning District's GIS to reflect the changing land use conditions of the two
counties.
Experimental Nature of this PrQject
Information generated through this project should be considered preliminary until further studies
are undertaken to validate the predictions of the AF model. Because of the uncertainty involved in
the predictive capability of screening models such as AF, implementation of this project should be
based upon verification of the model. For now, resource managers should work to understand how
the project was developed as well as the limitations and potential benefits of the AF model's
predictions.
Example Pesticide Maps
Example pesticide maps have been produced for this project. These maps show areas which are
vulnerable to a specific pesticide and if that pesticide is now potentially applied to the same areas.
Since a high percentage of the residents of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District rely on
groundwater, this document, combined with specific pesticide maps, could be used to develop
public policies to protect groundwater should the model be validated in the future.
Also contained in this chapter are regulatory and voluntary strategies as well as recommended
studies for consideration. Use of these strategies and studies, along with the types of pesticide
maps contained in this document, could protect groundwater quality, if the AF model is validated
in the future.
Groundwater Vulnerability for Example Pesticide Maps
One of the pesticides among the group of the most mobile of the one-hundred and fifty pesticides
in the two counties analyzed was used to produce Albemarle County and Louisa County example
vulnerability maps. Areas were classified as "likely", "moderately likely", and "unlikely", depending
on the numerical score or index computed through the AF equation, and the amount of area with
groundwater that is vulnerable to the example pesticide. The vulnerability maps contained in this
document demonstrate areas where groundwater would be vulnerable to a sample pesticide.
70.3 acres in Albemarle County were determined to contain groundwater which is moderately
likely to be vulnerable to the pesticide, while 4.7 acres were found to have groundwater which is
likely to be vulnerable to the pesticide. Out of the 465,828.9 acres in the county, 75 acres, or
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
15
July, 1993
.00 2%, are classified as having areas with groundwater which has likely or moderately likely
vul erability to the example pesticide.
16 .9 acres in Louisa County were determined to contain groundwater which is moderately likely
to e vulnerable to the pesticide, while 22.2 acres were found to have groundwater which is likely
to e vulnerable to the pesticide. Out of the 328,027.7 acres in the county, 186.1 acres, or .001%,
are classified as having areas with groundwater which has likely or moderately likely vulnerability
to he example pesticide.
Areas of Example Pesticide Application in Relation to Groundwater Vulnerability Maps
Ar as which contain groundwater that is vulnerable to the example pesticide were then
cr ss-referenced to areas in which the example pesticide is applied to produce maps of areas
wh re pesticide is applied to areas that are vulnerable to it. Areas with groundwater which is
u ikely to be vulnerable to the pesticide, and that pesticide is potentially applied, are classified as
" w vulnerability". In a similar fashion, areas with groundwater which is moderately likely to be
vu erable to the pesticide, and that pesticide is potentially applied has "moderate vulnerability"
wh'le areas that are likely to be vulnerable to a pesticide which is now potentially applied has
"hi h vulnerability".
Of the 75 acres in Albemarle County which have groundwater that is moderately likely or likely to
be vulnerable to the example pesticide, 0 acres were found to have that pesticide potentially
ap lied. Of the 186.1 acres in Louisa County which have groundwater that is moderately likely or
lik ly to be vulnerable to the example pesticide, 2.7 acres were found to have that pesticide
po entially applied. Of this 2.7 acres, 1.6 acres have moderate vulnerability and 1.1 acres have high
vu nerability. Alternatively, of the 186.1 acres, only .01 % has groundwater which is vulnerable to
po ential pesticide application.
e maps provided in this study are but one means to delineate vulnerable areas. Existing
gr undwater and surfacewater quality, identification of significant groundwater and surfacewater
ca chments, and hydrogeologic analyses can also be used to delineate areas deserving special
at ention. These projects are planned to be undertaken in the future, throughout the region, as a
pa t of the Thomas Jefferson Study to Preserve and Assess the Regional Environment
(T SPARE).
ere are four recent legal and educational initiatives which could be used to support local
go ernment programs to regulate pesticides in order to protect groundwater. The 1987
G oundwater Protection Strategy for Virginia and the 1990 Supplement contain references to
pe ticide pollution as one of the five priorities for action and recommended the development of
st ategies to use local government land use authority to protect groundwater. Also, the draft
ve sion of the 1992 Wellhead Protection Handbook lists local government operating standards as a
mans to limit the application of pesticides in wellhead protection areas. In addition, the
C esapeake Bay Preservation Act Local Assistance Manual recommends performance standards
w ich include a reduction in the land application of nutrients and toxics. Finally, the Code of
Id ntijication of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
G lIndwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
16
July, 1993
Virginia was recently amended to strengthen provisions for local governments to use their powers
of zoning and comprehensive planning to protect groundwater.
o The 1987 Ground Water Protection Strategy for Virginia noted that local governments have the
greatest impact on groundwater and that there is a need for local governments to take groundwater
vulnerability into account when dealing with land uses that have potential groundwater conse-
quences. It is also noted in the strategy that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) contain provisions which provides
both EP A and the states the power to restrict the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers in par-
ticular geographic areas.
The 1990 Supplement to the Ground Water Protection Strategy found pesticides and fertilizers
to be one of the five pollution potential sources listed as priorities for action. The supplement
recommended that an ad-hoc committee be established to find additional ways to use local
government land use authority to protect groundwater.
o In response to the Ground Water Protection Strategy, the Ad Hoc \Vellhead Protection Advisory
Committee issued a report in June of 1991 which recommended that localities "play the lead role
in setting groundwater protection goals and priorities, in determining areas to be protected, and
in designating the type of protections to be implemented". As a follow-up to this report, the Ad
Hoc Wellhead Advisory Committee has recently prepared a draft wellhead protection handbook
entitled "Wellhead Protection: Tools for Local Governments in Virginia". The handbook recom-
mends operating standards as a regulatory technique to "limit the threat to the environment posed
by ongoing processes, such as pesticide application".
The 1989 Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department Local Assistance Manual recommends
performance standards within Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas which includes a reduction in
the land application of nutrients and toxics. The purpose of this requirement is to pr,;;vent a net
increase in nonpoint source pollution from new development, achieve a 10% reduction in non-
point source pollution from redevelopment, and achieve a 40% reduction in nonpoint source pol-
lution from agricultural uses. The manual defines nonpoint source pollution as pollution consisting
of constituents such as sediment, nutrients, and organic and toxic substances from diffuse sour-
ces, such as runoff from agriculture and urban land development and use.
o
o The Code of Virginia clearly supports groundwater protection as a goal of the comprehensive
plan. Code of Virginia, Sections 15.1-446.1, and 447, allow localities to study groundwater and
geologic factors and to designate groundwater protection areas. In addition, Code of Virginia,
Section 15.1-489 allows for localities to adopt zoning ordinances which include reasonable
provisions to protect groundwater. These sections of the code firmly establish the authority of
local governments to use land use to protect groundwater.
Together, these policy statements, recommended programs and laws indicate that local
government can use planning and zoning techniques as means to control land uses to protect
groundwater within sensitive or vulnerable areas. It seems, then, that local governments could limit
the application of pesticides within such areas through a control of certain land uses generally
linked \vith specific pesticides. It may also be possible for a locality to go so far as to use operating
standards and source prohibitions to limit pesticide use itself within vulnerable areas. However,
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
17
July, 1993
the~e types of local controls seem to conflict with a recent decision by the General Assembly to
control pesticide use at the state level.
The 1992 Virginia General Assembly passed into law House Bill 503, Code of Virginia, Section
3.1-249.33, which gives exclusive authority to regulate pesticides to the Pesticide Control Board.
One of the concerns which HB 503 grew out of, was the potential confusion among landowners
ovet the types of pesticides which could and could not be used if they were regulated by local
governments rather than the state. The state should re-examine this policy as data about the
vulnerability of specific areas to specific pesticides is developed and verified.
A IIl-odel the state should consider is the decentralized strategy recommended in the 1988 report
"M~naging Pesticides in Groundwater: A Decision-Making Framework", by the University of
Wislconsin-Madison. Much like Virginia has developed the Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance
BOaird to oversee local plans, the Pesticide Control Board could oversee program development
and: implementation of pesticide management plans, for those localities where vulnerable areas
have been identified.
Demonstration Policy Recommendations
The intent of the demonstration management recommendations in this document is to provide
sample management programs should the AF model be evaluated, discussed, and approved by
resqurce managers, the scientific community, and the Commonwealth of Virginia. These strategies
could be accomplished under existing enabling legislation through review of discretionary land
uses in areas which are sensitive to pesticides commonly associated \'\lith the proposed land use. If
information from this study and others are validated, the state could consider relaxing its
centralized regulatory control of pesticides, thereby enabling localities to control by-right land uses
in vulnerable areas, and to have some local control of pesticide use as well.
Goal 1. Amend the Comprehensive Plan to include Pesticide Pollution Potential Areas
Intrpduction
Pesticide vulnerability and critical areas maps for a sample pesticide \vith a high pollution potential
has been developed for this document. Pesticides \vith high pollution potential rankings meet two
conditions; first, a high percentage of the pesticide is able to migrate to the groundwater, and
secCllnd, the migration occurs over large areas of the county. Maps for a sample pesticide meeting
these conditions can be found in this document.
Str~tegies
1. Amend the comprehensive plan to include a goal to protect groundwater through the \'iise use of
pesticides.
2. Adopt Pesticide Pollution Potential Areas into the comprehensive plan. Pesticide pollution
potential areas are composed of areas shown as vulnerable or critical on any of the pesticide
pollution potential maps supplied to the counties.
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
18
July, 1993
Goal II. Adopt Strategies within Pesticide Pollution Potential Areas
IntI;oduction
The intent of the strategies contained in this section is to provide a mechanism to manage
pesticides via land use. Using the pesticide database, which links land use to pesticide type,
proposed by-right and discretionary land uses can be reviewed by each locality with help from the
Virginia Cooperative Extension Service to identify pesticide threats to groundwater. \Vhen land
uses are proposed within an area vulnerable to pesticides used with the proposed land use,
Extension Agents can consult with landowners about the risk of pesticides in the area, and if
appropriate, recommend alternative pesticides to protect groundwater.
Wi~h discretionary land uses, the locality can use pesticide vulnerability as one of the criteria used
to approve the land use. If necessary, when the proposed land use is within a vulnerable area and
there are no pesticide alternatives, the locality could use groundwater protection as a criteria to
deqy the approval of the proposed land use.
Str(ltegies
1. Adopt voluntary strategies for by-right land uses within the pesticide pollution potential areas.
Site plans and subdivision plats within the areas should be reviewed by the locality working with
the ,local extension office.s The Extension Agent should recommend alternative pesticides which
have a low potential to contaminate groundwater within the area in question.
2. Adopt mandatory strategies for discretionary land uses within the pesticide pollution potential
areas. Rezonings, special use permits, and comprehensive plan amendments within the pollution
potential areas should be reviewed by the locality \vorking with the local extension office. The
agent should recommend alterative pesticides which have a low potential to contaminate
groundwater within the area is question. 'When alternative pest control strategies cannot be found,
the locality could deny the approval of the proposed land use.
Goal m. Educational Program for Pesticide Applicators
Intfjoduction
Corpmercial and private applicators of pesticides, including farmers, pest controllers, landscape
architects, and managers of local farming cooperatives must take pesticide certification and
re-certification classes. \Vhile a great deal of data are available to determine the chemicals which
best control pests, there is little or no information available about locations where the chemicals
canbe used safely. Information generated from this report \\'ill allow pesticide management
recommendations to be provided for specific land and landowners.
5 Local soil and water conservation district personnel should also be cOllsidered as valuable sources of expertise.
I
ldellltificatioll of NOllpoint Source Pollution to
GrOlllld\<,'ater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
19
July, 1993
11<
Strategies
1. The Virginia Cooperative Exension Service should develop a computer-based program to
integrate soils information and pesticide vulnerability maps to provide the best possible pesticide
managment information to pesticide applicators.
Goal IV. Public Information through the Virginia Tech Cooperative Extension Service
Agents
Introduction
Local extension agents must frequently recommend pesticides to landowners who want
information on safe pesticide use. Pesticide vulnerability and critical areas maps could be used to
inform the public about safe pesticide use.
Strategies
1. The Albemarle and Louisa Cooperative Extension Offices should obtain pesticide vulnerability
and critical areas maps to inform the public about safe pesticide use.
2. Extension agents should use the vulnerable areas shown on the maps to answer quest.ions from
the public regarding appropriate pesticide use in those areas.
3. Virginia Cooperative Extension Agents should develop a work program to contact and educate
landowners in critical areas about safe pesticide use.
4. Extension agents should work with local planning staff to provide advice on appropriate
pesticide use to property owners \\'ho are developing land in vulnerable areas.
Goal V. Pesticide Testing in Critical Areas
Introduction
Pesticide critical areas maps show where the groundwater is vulnerable to a specific pesticide and
the land use which that pesticide is commonly associated with is present. Using these maps,
Albemarle County and Louisa County should consider the adoption of a water testing program for
pesticides in critical areas. Such a program may be authorized by Code of Virginia, Section
32.1-176.5 B, which enables localities to require testing of water quality prior to issuance of a
building permit. Albemarle County has been authorized under this legislation. Louisa has not yet
requested to be included. There are laboratories that can quickly test for most of the pesticides
used throughout the region. For example, a lab in Cleveland, Ohio, will analyze a water sample for
the SLX pesticides regulated by the Safe Drinking \Vater Act and eight Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) for $100.00-$175.00.
Strategies
1. Louisa County should request to be included in Code of Virginia Section 32.1-176.5 B.
Albemarle County has already been approved under this enabling legislation.
Identification of Nonpoint Source PollzaiolJ to
Groundwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
20
Ju~v, 1993
..
2. 4mend the comprehensive plan to include a strategy to test groundwater for pesticides in areas
marked critical on the pesticide pollution potential maps. Water samples should be tested for
tho~e specific pesticides which the area is vulnerable to.
3. Add to the zoning ordinance a section which requires pesticide testing for by-right and
dis~retionary land uses within critical areas.
Goal VI. Suggested Future Pesticide studies in Albemarle County and Louisa County
Introduction
The AF model predicts the relative likelihood that a pesticide could reach groundwater.
Verification of the predictions should be undertaken to determine the validity of the model. The
Uniiversity of Wisconsin-Madison Report "Managing Pesticides in Groundwater: A Decision
M~king Framework" recommends pesticide testing in vulnerable areas to further refine area
bo~ndaries. Groundwater testing for pesticides could occur via a local program to test
groundwater quality in critical areas prior to approval of a building pennit (see Goal V: Pesticide
Tdting in Critical Areas) and through a cooperative research project to test groundwater within
thel vulnerable areas.
Strategies
1. Virginia Cooperative Extension Service should work with Va. Tech and the Thomas Jefferson
Plarnning District to develop a methodology to verify the model, especially to test for pesticides in
critical areas.
2. Virginia Cooperative Exension Service, in conjunction with Va. Tech, and the Thomas Jefferson
Plainning District, should propose a project to verify the AF model. Included in the project should
be tests to determine how well the differences in vulnerability that the model predicts are
replicated in the field.
Goal VIT. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to include Pesticide Overlay Districts
Introduction
Areas within the pesticide overlay districts have groundwater which is vulnerable to certain
pesticides. If authority to regulate pesticides should be granted to localities in the future, and if
futUre verification of the AF model shows a correlation between actual pesticide contamination
and vulnerable areas, local governments should consider a mandatory review of by-right as well as
distretionary development to require appropriate pesticide usage.
Str~tegies
1. If>evelop a pesticide overlay district ordinance, which includes pesticide pollution potential areas
as ipentified in the comprehensive plan, for the zoning ordinance.
2. :Proposed land uses for by-right and discretionary development falling \vithin the pesticide
ov~rlay district should request a development permit from the zoning administrator. The zoning
adrpinistrator will work with the applicant and extension agent to adjust pesticide application rate,
Identification of Nonpoint Source Pollution to
Grmmdwater from Pesticides: Demonstration Study
21
Ju~y, 1993
.)
I-
I' fre uency, method of application, as well as to find alternative pesticide uses. The applicant should
be equired to develop educational programs, and, where appropriate, to promote the wise use of
pe ticides.
3. I the event management strategies and practicable alternative pesticides which protect
gr undwater cannot be found, pesticides which the groundwater is vulnerable to should be
res ricted or, alternatively, the permit could be denied.
,
I
I
Identificatioll of NOllpoillt SOllTce Pollution to
Gro Illdwater from Pesticides: Demollstratioll Study
22
July, 1993
I
II
I
I
I
"
References
Hoc Wellhead Protection Advisory Committee, Report oftheAd Hoc Wellhead Protection
A isory Committee, June, 1991. Arnold, Steve, Jennifer Pfister, Louisa County Water Testing
Pr gram, Service Training for Environmental Progress, Summer 1992 Report.
C esapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, Local Assistance Manual: A guide for the
d elopment of local programs in order to comply with the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, 1989.
C !lins, Michael. Green County DRASTIC: A Mapping Project to Delineate Groundwater Pollution
Po entialAreas with Associated Protection Strategies, Thomas Jefferson Planning District
C mmission, 1991.
CHins, Michael. Louisa County DRASTIC: A Mapping Project to Delineate Groundwater Pollution
Po ential Areas with Associated Protection Strategies, Thomas Jefferson Planning District
C mmission, 1991.
H milton, PLxie A., Robert J. Shedlock, Are Fertilizers and Pesticides in Groundwater? A Case Study
of he Delmarva Peninsula} Delaware} Maryland} and Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey Circular
10 0, 1992.
Hi Ide, Kenneth R., McChesney Sterrett, Ground Water Resources of Albemarle County, Virginia,
C mmonwealth of Virginia, State \Vater Control Board, Planning Bulletin 326, December 1980.
In titute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Pesticides in Groundwater:
A ecision-A1aking Framework, 1988.
0' are, Michelle, and Robert Shih, Nelson County Water Testing Program, Service Training for
E ironmental Progress, Summer 1991 Report.
R ndolph, John. Water Resources A1anagement in Virginia and the Role of Localities, Virginia
Po ytechnic Institute and State University, 1991.
Rao, P.S.C, A.G. Hornsby, and R.E. Jessup. 1985. Indices for Ranking the Potential for Pesticide
Co tamination of Groundwater. Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceedings 'i-4: 1-8.
Vi ginia Council on the Environment, Special Report: Pesticide lvfanagement in Virginia, January,
19 9.
Vi ginia Ground \Vater Protection Steering Committee. A Ground JVater Protection Strategy for
Vi 'nia, 1987.
Vi ginia Ground \Vater Protection Steering Committee. 1990 Supplement toA Ground Water
Pr tection Strategy Strategy for Virginia} 1990.
Vi ginia Groundwater Protection Steering Committee, WELLHEAD PROTECTION, A Handbook
for Local Governments in Virginia, 1992.
I
I
I
I
I
.J
APPENDIX I: PESTICIDE DATABASE
LAND USE
PESTICIDE TRADE NAME
buildings/parking lots
hardwood/grown pine/idle land
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
lawn
exp~cted future residential development.
turf
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
nursery
no pesticide application
no pesticide application
diazinone
milky spore disease
oftanol
daconal2787
siduron
benefin
bensulide
dimension
dursban tc
torpedo
draqnet ft
pryfon
tribute
demon tc
triumph
ronstar
turf builder plus ha
roundup
2,4,d
banvel
cpp
same as lawn pest.
same as lawn pest.
diazinon
malathion
thiodan
tempo
orthene
B.T.
lindane
seVlll
mavrik
guthion
pounce
horticultural oil
daconil 2787
subdue 2e
benlate
I.
I.
.
nm ery
nur ery
nm ery
nm ery
nm ery
nm ery
nur ery
nm ery
nm ery
nm ery
nm ery
veg tables
veg tables
veg tables
veg tables
veg tables
veg tables
veg tables
veg tables
veg tables
veg tables
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
fiel crops
past re
past re
past re
past re
past re
past re
priv & comm. held pine plant.
priv & comm.held pine plant.
priv & comm.held pine plant.
priv. & comm. held pine plant.
priv. & comm. held pine plant.
maneozeb
banner
zyban
agri -strep
barot 40% wp
gallery 75d7
ronstar SOw
rout
casoron
pennant8e
roundup
asana xl
methoxychlor 50 wp
lannate
phosdrin 4e
ridomil 2e
bravo 720
topsin-m-70\vp
2,4,d
atrazine
pencap-m
aatrex
dual
roundup
pnncep
bladex
gramoxane e
lorsban
furadan 4f
counter
malathion
lasso
lorox
scepter
harmony
2,4,d
banvel
roundup
ally
crossbow
paraquat
arsenal
Arsenal/accord
Arsenal/roundup
Ulw
Garlon
I
I.
I
,-
I,
..
priv & comm. held pine plant.
priv & comm. held pine plant.
priv & comm. held pine plant.
gyp .
gyp
roa
roa
roa
roa
roa
roas
pow rlines/pipelines
ind strial areas
gre nhouse
gre nhouse
gre nhouse
gre nhouse
gre nhouse
gre nhouse
greenhouse
gre nhouse
greenhouse
greenhouse
greenhouse
greenhouse
greenhouse
greenhouse
gree house
greenhouse
arc vine
orc Vllle
arc
ore
ore vine
arch vine
orch vine
orc Vllle
orch vine
orc Vllle
orc vine
orc vine
orc
orc Vllle
arch vine
orc
arc
Tourdon
Atrex
Ous t/roundu p
Bt
dimilim 4a48b
garlon 3a
oust
surflan as
roundup
krenite
hi-dep
no pesticide application.
no pesticide application
oxamyl 21
resmethrin 2gc
talstar 100vp
b-9
gnatrol
diazinon
pentac
orthene
sunspray oil
vapona
vendex
subdue 5g
banrot 40% wp
danconil 2787
benlate 50% \\'P
ornalin 50% \vp
superior oil
lorsban 4e
do dine 65w
captan S(}.v
rubigan Ie
nova 40w
guthion 35w
lannate
thiran 65w
carzol
bayleton 50df
streptomycin
penncap m
sulfur
benlate 50df
topsin-m 85wdg
ferbam 76w
..
thiodan 50w
bordeaux mix
rnethowychlor 50w
roundup
arsenol
roundup
2-4d
oust
garlon
karmex
vme
vine
vme
orc vine
rail oads
rail oads
rail oads
rai oads
rai oads
rai oads
I
I
I
I
t---~- .
.
r;~:..:;: " ,'. ,_
t,.~ ',,:' "
,C'. ''':c
.. ,
-
".. < ...:tv~
,;: :-::x..
;, ,~~, .:i'::'i'\::lii,;,,:'-' ;I.~
:;,;".
t:.:~
", ~
,
.-:~;lt'
~'~~
f,.l.f ."
.r
~~~
~~~
--' $; i,;!/t-',p ~
~)-:. ~~l~~~~
jJ' ....
~l;Gl~~ I j ~ 8-~
. ~]~~%-i~~. ~E : I j
'r, ..., -.-71.. ." ':k. '-'-":' ~ ... :: .. !
'\ ~:J[g, ~ ~~ z ~ '!
~ ~ ~0 '( --;;- r-o...9Y,~jJ. ;:: ! _ ~ E
\'..... .J./Y_~/\f li~; ~ ~ .. ~ ..
'J v-",~ '--It ~'>..ti;1 rr 'l E~ ~ ~ ;:; i..~ =_
,{~ ' ??~(iif 1. ~r/;;' i~~~ ~ ~ ~!~ i
i' '/z '\?.)\ < ~ 1 -~""',,-r;$~ t~.:!: ~..-i 8~
7./1~....-r:\~'''1 '. ~g[0V\"" ~\~l4.lrs1~7- ~<Vr?;'>~; :~5: ~ : ~i~ ~i
~ "11"- ~ \ 'I 0":>0 ...... ,i!... :>_
.' n, '~~""...J,'~ -,;, ' ;'0:;: ;::=~~~ ~~~ llt..~ 8~
~~ '. . l" ..... .". ~.. ..
,',' ~ J. 'f? '\ ''l' ,
~;;j~\~ ii.~ ~
~ \ h'- \-~.,\ ~lC[)
~I]'I.: '\~:i~
E~~~~"\.!U1r~~~ ~.
." . :"~\ ~ ~~~IJ..::"\ ~ ~
:,:.;;s:.(r~ ~1J'11\ r-;
:.-, ,~'JI '.:::t~'-. ~:
;;'.>:::.~ ~ JR. \ ~'1 j,,~ 1=1'". v:;;
Z'.'.--: .M...... -&r '.k7'\...V~~, _
"T:d<.<,.~~...:~~ -'L'\.}........
." :,0 ""~ i' ~r= ::L ~'1.~~ '-., i
~"'\';:;~0~ ~(;g()) ~
$,., J/\V ~ '<wl)/d--' ~
>:;,>;' ''-''.1 1"1. ,'X \ ~ ..
. '.1'",""..," -~\ ~ . :: ~
>'. ...,.<,:....\,'-~~-'-
<"\/:;;"L~ 8
'.'" :"::J: 8
-;, :> "',;" :::
...'..;-.:.; . -
"".,'" .:
i. .L/ ;;l
co',::,'", ,__ .:., ::l
~
I
f
*
r
l
(
1'-
..
..-. ,
V IN lOll I ^ . 3"111 AS3U01!fYH:I
3~1&1I3S NOISNill1i 3"UVYiclOO~ UNno~ 31YVHi8lY
VINIOYI" '3"I"$31101l1YH:I
U3Y18 UlllMl lSV3 tit
NOISSIWWOO J~11I1SIO ONINNYld NOSlli~~Jr SYNOHJ
ltotl: VINIOIIll 'Ollll8S11~V'8
'lYH ZJl3S
JNilUlIYclJO ONlllnNIONilYllnJ'1Il~llIOY H:lU V 1It1 011 I II
IlOtl: VINIOIIIII 'Oyn8SllOV18
U3IU$ U'1Il;W~ V 1101
11131lJIIYdJO ONIY13_ION3 1YlIlU'1ll~IYOV 11:13J VINIOlIIII
AllOJVIIO~' SMJJU8 JIIO....ns IlOUYIllIO:lNI
, , 'A8 QillYcI!IlW
tt&l '.or
VINIOIIIII 'lJNOIlH~IY
01lY01l 1OIIJ~ lIiJ"" iJYJS, VINIOYIII
'1IO~ Q311Ydillcl
l S3lI~VI"OJ 3VVJ~JH &/1 0 ',33 I 0000" . I i1Y~S
J~l4l1O UVJSJ ,1Yill 4JNIlO~ i'lMli81Y
NOIJYAliSN03 113JY" QNY 'IOS
Ml IIOISIIIIO . IIOUVM3Y ONY NOU'ylllliSlIO~ iIO JN3WJIIY<lJO VINIOIIIA
JIJIWO'JAJO AJlIIIMlO:l ONY 0II11111Y.... IIJ JN3IlJIIYdl0 AJNIlO~ 1'1lMI381Y
110 UVlIOdlIO~ lIiJ1illOY'O
NOIJVll1O<lS~l 10 lNINJlIY<liO VI"IOlIIA
NOUVIIO~ SQNYllIilllU ONY1S1 lIYi8
NOUVllO<lIlO~ O:lVAJSlJII
AYJSJ1IO.I Ml JNINJlIYdJO YIMIOYIA
13111113S 1I018NiJX3 JAUYlIUOO3 YIMIOYIA
AOO1Oll0JNI AO JNINJlIYd30 H31J YIMIOYIA
AlIOJYlIOlY' 811A1YNY JNY'd ONY ONUSJJ 1108 Jr.lU VINIOYIA
JlNO JOI~USJd ONY onllO '1Y~IIIJtr.) H31J VIMIOYIA
1JIIlIllS 'IOS UNIlOO nlMli8~ S3S vosn
iSYIYJYO JIlO<l3ll MOIJJ1cIIIOQ IIIJY"ONnQYO All1n03 JllMli81Y
YJYO MOUVAJ1] Y3JVIIOllnOIlO J3111&810 OIIINIIY'<I NOSY3:1"3r SYIIOHJ
SilIY3S OOOte'l $]10NYYOvnO 3JnNIII "I' I 1JAllns 1Y:lIOO'030 's'n
SillliS ooot"1 l010l HdYlIO iNI' 1YJIOIO A3AlInS 1Y31001030 's'n
: SJO 113 110103 3SII ONYl S:lSY
000"'1 (dYHNl l~lI00JDH4 JOnJ!J1Y MOIH1YNOIJVN
i3l!l10S YJ YlI
lillO/113M NO UY JlIOclSNYlIJ
iOVM I vila 33Y ~lIllS
YiIIY .lon18 :10 JOO 1I0il1IAS3UO'VVH3
t.tt8~'t SNOIJY31'cldY 30131JS3<1 JnOMJl1I SVillY
0'0
0'0
0.t8U
AJl118YY3NlIlA HOIH
AJI118VY3N1IlA ilYII300ll
AJI118VY3N1IlA 1101
SNOUY31....dY iOl3USJcI HJI" SY311Y
II
CJ
o
lIJ
C"J
[:}
SlIlI3Y
-----------------~-_._-------------------------------
AlI003JV:I 3n1YA
Jd,Hnoo 3-U:IVW381V
^lIl18V~3Nln^
NO I 1V~ I,lddV
~31VMaNnO~D 01 NOI1V13~
3aI~I1S3d 31dWVX3
.:10
NI
SV3~V
II
II
II
II
II
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
-
-
-
,'--,.._--------------
VINIO~IA '311IAS3JJOlijYH~
301A~3S NOISN3JX3 3AI!Vij3dOOO UNnoo 31ijVW391V
VINIOij!A '311IAS3U01UVHO
J33ijJS J3~ijVW ISV3 rlt
NOISSIWIlOO JOIlI!SIO ONINNYld NOSnH3r SVWOHJ
190t~ VINIO~IA 'o~n8S~OV18
llVH Z J13S
lN31UllVd30 ONI~33NION3 1\'llnnnOlllOV H031 VJNIO~IA
190~~ VINIOIlIA 'Olln8S~OV18
133111S AnnOVJ v 901
lN31UllVd30 ONI1l33NION3 1\'llnnnOlllOV H031 VINIOIlIA
All01VllOavl Sil31SAS 1110ddnS NOI!VW~OJNI
. A8 0311V d311d
1:661 hW
VINIOIlIA 'ONOIIHOlll
0~V08 101l!NOO lI31VII 31V1S VINIO~IA
'1I0J 03~Vd311d
30 I JJO 31V IS3 lY311 A1NnoO 31llVW381V
NOl!VA1I3SHOO ~31VII ONV 110S
JO NOIS!AIO . NOllV31103~ ONY NOllV~1I3SNOO JO lN3Illl1Vd30 VINIO~IA
lN3IId013A30 UINOIlNOO ONY ONINNYld JO lN3IIlllVd30 UNnoo 31l1V1l381V
NO I!VlIOdllOO 1I3n3JOV10
NOI!V1~OdSNYlIl JO JN3IIlllVd30 VINIOlllA
NOI!VllOdllOO SONY1113l111l1 ONY1S1 llV38
NOI1VllOdijOO 00VA1S3/I
All1S3110J JO lN3IIll1Vd30 V I N I O~!A
301A~3S HOISN31X3 3AI!V1I3dOOO VINIOlllA
A00101l01N3 JO lN3IIlllVd30 H031 V I N 10~ I A
AlI01VlIOavl SISA1VNY lNYld ONY ONI!S31 110S H031 VINIOlllA
JlNn 3010l1S3d ONY 01'1110 '1\'0IW3HO H031 VINIO~IA
A3AlInS 110S UNOOO 31~VW391V SOS vosn
3sv8V lVO 1110d311 N0l131dWOO 1I31VIIONnOllO UNnoo 3111VW381V
VIVO N0l1VA313 1I31VI\ONnO~0 1011l1SI0 ONINNYld NOS~3H3r SVWOHl
S31~3S OOO~~'I S310NYijOVno 31nNlw UI J. A3AlIns lVOI001030 's'n
S31113S OOO~~'I (0101 HdVlIO 3Nll lYJIOIO A3AlIns 1\'01001030 's'n
S30llS 110100 3sn ONVl S~SV
OOOt~'1 (dVHNI AHd'VijOOI0Hd 300111"" H01H lVNOI1VN
301100S VIVO
(S3~OV J.~' 01 3llV 103H 611 . 1130 I OOOOU' I 31vOS
V311V AINnoo JO 100 0
~1I0/l1.3N NOI1V1~OdSNV~1
30VN I VIlO 30V JlIns 1\1
J.'~ A 13~ll rn'l
r'oJ. A13~ I 1 A131V~300W 0
6'rSJ.S9~ A 13~ 11Nn 0
............... --............ --...... ---............... ....- -..--....................................................
S3110V
A~003IYO 31'11Y^
AINno~ 31HVW381V
3aI~I1S3d 31dWVX3 ~O.:J AII'lI8VtJ3Nln^ ~31VMaNnOtJ8
~~
JA'~~ ">tl~\\
ffA~\ ~
- ~.rX \ ," ,,'.,. ... ~
" r.;-., ~;~~ .,... ~ J' E"rJ'h fl
)0 \0-\!1 :.4.Jt ~i 1\' Y\C N'\.-; (',- "'~(';/
~l1d,/~. ,JI L 1/" ~'~
",' F/lVV'...<: '?:'.---v:;\l,', ....'7 ~ '
~t..l.- -'- -/ .- ,I." ,,- ~ ~ )'
A'~:.~f~~', "ci~
_~ 7f'~. ~~;"~ D ' ~ .~\~\--~~8. g0~
r,' ,1: ~lC:.t.J' F ~ 'I l..--l ~(
:-", '( _f::Kn. _:;.-i _\' ~...-l ,( Y
y~ "" ~ .'~)..:'- ~ ~I, l~' r-'f ' X ,7;...,
~ .'..,....";\ ~. i't;.(::-,""-. ~;; T. " '/ /. /,iS1'
.;.:a..~ i,0-~1 1I~~I~\';I'~~N~,,~ ~)l18L~.f"~\~ ,/).4~'j/
,g. '/" '--1 "'I; >.. /' "f-~ , '( ~ v u /
~ 'Y~Il~ J. ~d ,,~,\..' ~
~));~~~ ,/r~(~,:.,~ ~k.-r/~0,1 ~ I~' L
~ ~1~~Yh~7'71'\)~ ~~\;(fi~ ~ ~
,~~0~Gl<r"~\-~~Y:J~ IN ~ ~ \\~
\(. ~~~~S'~.w:j" ~ ~~~?~~.----, l
A1.~~~~~~ ~L 7JY~ ~W ~ )~~/'~ ~ ~,1//.
.:z: l' ~..,~ ~I~;, 'f'~ ~tf7 ~(J~; tif:Y)\
fliPl ~)\... \ ? v do CJ~,,' ~J , ( ~" \ .l~ "V~Y'0'\
./h J"1~1 ~~J>Y:-,~'~ "tJr[, i\\. ~ ~ -'e" / ~j1-
~~(~~~I" V./F fx\~ ~/~. 7 ~,f'" . i" 1- 111~~
~ \,~ . I: ~~ :~ ~ '" K"' r I/f) ~Xr l)~ ~"~~( C--7 ;;!;4.4'v)<
...,_ \ D.; .'1 ~ ~,'l~ V~~ \1 ~ \l.... ,,-- 1\ 7..!L ' ~
;:rx ~~~ ~~ ,~~ "J~ ,~~/il/t1~~ ;:~~l\~ l~--:-Z~ -~~) ~~~ri~
~~~ ~~ ~~,SI\I ~~ d-.t ~ J'v~ IN J, ~r~c;~(~~~-J~t-~\\{~^--'"-y 1<1
~J.:...A :\ ~, ',C-'::: ..:Q'(t':;l~ Jr,(~i '1' ~ ~~~'% /"
.~ X '\)J . \~.J ~~I ~ !I-. J:: ;;fbf~ Kr K(' ~ '>' \~ " '1,T~' ~0
S ~ ~ ~~ 1\ ~~~ ~'\ /,:J ~ ~ ~ )~jf;:[ 1') IS ~. , . - _ \ t---~ . ~ v.!
:t'~ \i ~' 'V'J \..' J) . ..."j -;:.r I\.,\'Y_~ ' _11;::",\,
'f' ~ d ~ I'\.J........ ~I >-". ')~ ~'~ ," r ,. )\ ~ k " ~y ~ '
;o."~ t:-. 11.."( yJ ~ >' t.;:;. ~ r,., '.J.::-"'" ~JJ '- ~ ( '~- '---
{ \~ H' !j>- "'" ",. JJ ~ \w: ., {p-
-,\ii-~~(Witl) \IJ ,[~~. \' z-,lll,,'f}l . < '~i~ ~;vI~1 L'~~-c "'/0\:)
~\\ Y ~/l N~~(~ltf~~R~ z I _ JA ~,~ ) ~~ t. \
,\ f)J-'J1;,V rr>-rj /1 "('-r 1'< . :" ~ '
~i~ ~.--\ ~ l\,\I~f/t ~ - ~~ ~f
'" ~ 1(.I~~~jl . ~ ~ll~'J . r ~\...( (
"<'!::-"" ~/A~: ~'~~' ~ ~\i \
"VlS(1.l,~.\[h\~ ." rt'-dlb
c""J2 ~ ...d.."ll' ~, ~ -/ (
""~;;};f.,\_-=-::~?Uf.~ - \.1I'J.- Ft#:. r-, .
\.'\'~'r~~ f'.'}..C-. ~~?b-}/
'~~~,}~
-----~~--------~-~~-~---------_._----
I
____J
~~~~~~-~~~------_.-
T-- _ _ _ _ _ __--
-
~,......~
I .
..-.Il1{J~;;){' . ~ qf,~?it(
~:i.wt(flf(J?f/}:Jff W-'1t\: J.. ::r-:- ~_ ..J
~\~~'!?~~~~:X~~
-&'S; I/J~ Ld':"-r~~... '?L\~7<""- ~'Y.t& a
~~~JI' K\.-1'1/ 13'~ ~\ ~X\~~?( ~1Jt~
.!i5~ fu~\:3 /"'d<Z ~Kl~,\ :<;.~"!,~ -'~~ -c
J\7Yl\~~?~~~a=?- - '010/:t<J~(IJ~ ''-j.,Jjp~~~~R 'MJ.
.~ \\XTh. -'L r<v--r-rr" y r 1r t~ ;~ '- 'y,; ~'S\ j
i~ .I~ 1r\J3\\.'1.=RL\~\ \ t-yf;? ~~ .( ~~. ..xy'~~r~ l) ~~~ \h ~
~~~ ~W~QJ~Qj6~~~~ 'v--!f~~~-~-,~\~, ,~~,)1(\5~, ~ ~(
"\ y -J ~ ~i::-~ v;, 0- II ~-!M \1': /.~ f/.\, tb.; y~ 2V) )j ~ ~ '
.~', ~~~ tJ~I^<>./J~\~~ id ~~ lA':()~~ ~t
~'()~ x1!J^!jl(l/I) ~J (I J ~~N. ~/'/rn \/J'~ i""{ l'--
~~1;\}1~ ~'< .~ /~~"" 'rv:>l~';:t9:~ ~~/, V -;l~;'"
. \~~~W~~~ZI~~i\0~ '~'''''i'-:0(r.ii';i.1- .~~'
r;~~,\~~~~)~~~~y~~, ~~_~*~ ;~~~f~r
''W.~ ~ ~ '~~__'1 ~'~\~:'-1( fi '.~ ~Ii~
~, . ,'~ :\\ //{\- b-.~ f\ c.t, ~ J'~~'\'I~~'l1r
~ ~~ 'rR ~.t,-~,-1/)1"'~\\J f1 ,n .
?i.~oA. P "" - ~'{~r Vc ":' ~;?'~ ~:;\~' fJ."
'( ~~.' 'q ~~ ~)' '. ~ .\~c J 0.. ~.
P"~ ,\..J(-, I.~'~ ~ "c:\ '{~'-'-. ~\ rJJ ~, ,.....(jff
"-" ..,':1.. '7:."7 I~ " J lZ:o/. "d /i.::1):Q.;L
DSf t--L~'L 7f-..\ "< ~//.y~ /I'(Z ":" ~,~ \ '7
( .'::t ,lk,*..s'it-' ~ ~ "\( .'~ .t,y, ~/,J.~ ','r') I'V
n,-z.\ ~~: 1j ~_~,~ ~ ') ~/~ ~7
;"&,78. N~:'[':;(r<.,.R, ,,;,,, ~/~ "'\h A.,
"0.~"'11 '~('j ;", ~~~
'J';oJL..' ''.l'' Y", ,., ~'
'" ".~'::;; .)7"./,",.J<; '~ r ... ~1: \ I~
(\ 2:Jtr:r ,x.._ ,~~ '-IS.--:-
J., ,-"/ " ~
'" t).; 1\ r1 " .' \ ,\ \
I!~ ~ ~ '~~,L\": w'.~
l\~, 'I}
7,\,- ~JY,j;' '4
.;. /,i,7t I ~.
~'~lj ~
....FE:'
""
t:i
L.....-
GROUNDWATER VULNERABILITY FOR EXAMPLE PESTICIDE
LOU I SA COUNTY
VALUE CATEGORY
ACRES
DA T A SOURCE
NATIONAL HIGH ALTITUDE PHOTOGRAPHY (NHAP) 1'24000
ASCS LAND USE COLOR SL IDES
U.S. GEOlOGICAL SURVEY OIGITAL LINE GRAPH (OLG) ('24000 SERIES
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 7 1/2 HINUTE OUADRANGLES 1'24000 SERIES
THOHAS JEFFERSON PLANNING OISTRICT GROUNDWATER ELEVATION OATA
USOA SCSLOUISA COUNTY SOIL SURVEY
VIRGINIA TECH CHEHICAL. DRUG AND PESTlCIOE UNIT
VIRGINIA TECH SOIL TESTING AND PLANT ANALYSIS LABORATORY
V I RG I N I A TECH DEPARTHENT OF ENTOHllLOGY
VIRGINIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
VIRGINIA OEPARTHENT OF FORESTRY
WESTVACO CORPoRAT ION
BEAR ISLAND TIH8ERLANDS CORPORATION
VIRGINIA DEPARTHENT OF TRANSPORTAflON
GLADFELTER CORPORATION
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION AND RECREAfloN . DIVISION OF
SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION
LOUISA COUNTY REAL ESTATE OFFICE
............ 40.............................................. __...............................................
CJ UNLIKELY 327841.6
o HOOERATELY LIKELY 163.9
1m LIKELY 22.2
IIIIllI SURF ACE ORA I NACE
TflANSPORUr!ON NETI/ORK
o OUT OF COUNTY AREA
SCALE 1 . 220000 I CELL . 1/9 HECTARE (0.27 ACRES)
PREPARED FOR.
VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL BOARO
RICHHOND. VIRGINIA
HOJ 1993
PREPARED BY'
INFORHAT ION SUPPORT SYSTEHS LABORATORY
VIROINIA TECH AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING OEPARTHENr
106 A FACULTY STREET
BLACKSBURG. VIRGINIA 24061
VIRGINIA TECH AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING OEPARTHENT
SEITZ HALL
BLACKSBURG. VIRGINIA 24061
THOHAS JEFFERSON PLANNING OISTRICT COI1l1ISSIDN
413 EAST HARKET STREET
CHARLOTTESVILLE. VIRGINIA
LOUISA COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
LOUISA. VIRGINIA
, '?t ~ .,.{.!It'1:,,,,,Y''-'..q._..~_4'(ftr''''l!Ib.'''"i '~.T'"'~ ~'. '. or ~,''''''.~'' ~""' "~"" .."",!, 1..O!t q....'f'""', ";"'1' ... .""~~.~ ..._ ..-.-.....
.-
.
.
~ffi ill!
~~ 11~:g ~
" ' m
~ ~ .~ ~~~
,?- \m:: ~~~
j .',' '"
~
,
.
.
i!D~
· -~--la~
.
~
\
~'\~
)~~
\-i.
, ./
,~/
,
\
...
C>
;<
o <)
; ~
_ 0
... ..J
o 11.
'"
'"
~ Ii:
~ 0 ~ ~
Cl & 8
o <~~ 0
0: Z!.i
0.. ~~ ~.~w~
I- $ r' !>S.!!~ /j ~
z jl ~ ~.S 5 z )-
~~ W ~ ~}~ ~
Q.O~ ~ ~ ~l~ ~
:t I en oE"
irl~~...J~ ~~~ 8~
> J; Cl:~'nO
W ~o~d~ti
~ ~$jjj~~ ~~
o o~ C>
0:0.. ~ ~ ~
z 0
=< OX ~ ~
~ irl
o is
I
A~ENDA ITEM NAME
~ AfY1;j /; I /'11 <I
A~ENDA ITEM NO. q~16?( Ie ' {~ ~~
'2KJ.&> I ~a,j 2'JEC~ ~
Ph I~~ Ilt~ 1/ " '11
UNTIL
D~
Form. 3
7/25/86
........- /'"
D~TE a~j & I 19/~
A t;ENDA ITEM NO. &;'4- I olfo(p. ,~~ (p
A ~ENDA ITEM NAME IDA-
D UNTIL Ph Ih-j III ([~ +
Form. 3
7/25/86
,
. "
I
D I\.TE AcnJ &. /77<f
I ( /
Al ~ENDA ITEM NO. C)<f ({) tfO te . ;;);)7
A~ ~ENDA ITEM NAME 7:- d_,-_~) ) S' ' S
k-R 3(,~ a:-h ~'V\
D UNTIL Ih M3 rniLt, ) If-
(
'-
Form. 3
7/25/86
, ...
"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA T TLE:
Regional Economic Vitality Using Partnerships
(REV UP)
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 1994
ITEM NUMBER:
ACTION: ----X-
/,--., ,I
("--fLJ ,L I (,'{~ .
INFORMATION:
IV
c-
SUBJECT
Request
strategy
to draft action
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
A!l".rACBMEH'rS :
STAFF CO
Messrs.
REVIEWED BY:
Huff
BACKGRO
In Sept 1993, Ms. Nancy O'Brien and other members of the Jefferson Area Regional
Economi Development Partnership circulated a draft action plan for consideration to explore
the pote tial for creating a Regional Economic Development Partnership. It was proposed that
the part ership will be created for a three year incubation period and that its purpose would
be to f Ifill short term expectations such as establishing the office as the initial point
of conta t for economic development prospects, identifying knowledgeable individuals to meet
with pr spective businesses or industries, to recruit private sector members, develop an
economi development profile, an inventory of the region and to develop a regional economic
develop ent vision for the future. Its long term strategies included implementing a
marketi g plan for the region and other activities to be determined. The draft envisions
members ip of the Regional Partnership to be open to local government, institutions of higher
educati n, existing businesses, chambers of commerce, industrial development authorities and
plannin district commissions and would serve the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene,
Louisa, elson and the City of Charlottesville. The draft action plan estimates first year
expenses of the proposed partnership to be approximately $71,000.
DISCUSSI N:
Staff d'scussions with State Department of Economic Development regarding the new
administ ation's agenda in the arena of economic development indicates that Governor Allen
is expl ring the concept of regional economic development counsels statewide. This was a
campaign issue for Governor Allen and, to date, no details have been formulated or strategies
made pub ic that would give further indication as to the State's direction. Staff has been
advised that the Department of Economic Development expects some clear direction on this
issue in the next 90 to 120 days.
RECOMME ATION:
We will continue to monitor the State's direction
developm nt groups and report back to the Board as
availabl .
in encouraging regional economic
soon as additional information is
94.040
,.
TO:
FR M:
RE:
Jefferson Area Regional Economic Development Partnership
c/o Thomas Jefferson Planning District
413 East Market St., Suite 102
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(804) 972-1720 FAX (804) 972-1719
Memo
Local governing bodies, Chambers of Commerce, University of Virginia, Piedmont
Virginia Community College, Thomas Jefferson)?lanning District Commission,
Industrial Development Authorities, REV UP attendees, other interested parties
Members of the Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership:
Reece Belk, Charles Burgess, \Vayne Cilimberg, E. C. Compton, ~e Dittmar,
Ron Hachey, Nancy McMoneagle, Dan Nunziato, Nancy O'Brien, Gary O'Connell,
William Porter, Doug Powell, George Ray, Sally Thomas, Taylor Twyman,
Lyn Van der Sommen, William Wilkerson, Forrest McKay
Proposal for an Action Strategy
September 27, 1993
The ttached report gives a brief outline of the work to date by the Partnership. Formed by a
grou of persons concerned about economic development in the region, the group has gone
thro gh a visioning process led by the Center on Rural Development (CORD); met with the
chief elected officials, government and higher education administrators, and the Chambers of
Co erce; and conducted a day-long seminar entitled Regional Economic Vitality Using
Part erships (REV UP).
Mte reviewing the information from these activities, the Partnership developed a draft action
strat gy and decided to distribute the strategy to the participants in the process. The
Part ership feels the next step in this process is for a leadership group to explore the potential
for i plementing this strategy or some variation of this strategy and moving forward with the
idea. Persons interested in such activity are invited to call one of the Partnership members or
the T PDC office.
.'
,~
Action Strategy:
Create A Regional Economic Development Partnership
Backgr~~n~
The Jefferson Regional Economic Development Partnership is comprised of representatives
from the Chambers of Commerce and local governments in the planning district, Piedmont
Virginia Community College (PVCC), the University of Virginia (UV A), and the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC). The planning district area encompasses the
City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson.
The Partnership has met for approximately eighteen months and reviewed information related
to economic development in the area to determine the advisability of the public and private
sectors in the localities working together on economic development.
The Partnership sponsored a region-\vide meeting at PVCC, the Regional Economic Vitality
Using Partnerships, or REV UP, for the purpose of plumbing citizen interest in and support for
a regional approach to economic development. Approximately ninety people attended the
session at which Governor Holton encouraged partnership as the way to accomplish great things.
Findings
The findings were generated by the Partnership and the citizens who attended the REV UP
session. Many of these findings present opportunities to work together. They include:
. the localities are linked by the transportation systems, the political system, the planning
district commission, the Community College, the University, work places, and
commercial centers
. the job market has changed; manufacturing jobs are a lower percentage of all jobs in
the area now than in 1980; service and retail sector jobs have an increased percentage
of the total jobs
. there has been a net loss of jobs in the area
. improved job opportunities, with living wages and adequate benefits for the increasingly
better educated populace are necessary to maintain and improve the quality of life for
all of the area's citizens
.. in the 1970's and '80's the area grew as a result of University growth; the rate of
University growth has diminished
. there is a need for a shared vision
. there is a need for an environmentally responsible approach
. the area needs to retain existing business
. the area has a great potential for tourism
. affordable housing is not available in every locality
. working with potential firITIS is done on an ad hoc basis
. there is no central point for information required by firms interested in locating in the
area
. there is no central "stop and shop" office or referral of prospective clients
. working together would provide an efficient and effective economic develop effort and
keep interested firITIS in the area
........-....-.r................. ...................~. _. ..... no, .....
Action Strategy Proposal (9 (27 193) J err erson .R~g;~~.~.I"E;~.~;;;.f~.D~.~.~.i~p;;;.~.~i. p~.;:i~~;;h.fp............__.........._....._.. ........ -.........................-"1
Conclusion
The re ults of the committee work and REV UP both pointed to the need to create a
publi rivate regional economic development councilor partnership to begin to address the
issues hich are shared by all localities or which benefit by a regional approach. Those issues
have b en identified in the summaries of REV UP and the Jefferson Regional Economic
Devel pment Partnership activities; some are contained in the list of initial tasks for the
partne ship. The background reports are available at the TJPDC office.
While he work to date points to creation of a partnership, there is also strong sentiment that
any re ional group should reflect the common interests of the local governments and economic
develo ment organizations in the region and not chart new directions without concurrence of
the pa tners. In keeping with this sentiment, the partnership will pull together common
interes s and provide an efficient mechanism to carry out tasks which are sensitive to economies
of sca e.
Recommendation: Create a Regional Economic Development Partnership
Purpos of Partnership:
The P rtnership will conduct and support economic development activities in the City of
Charl ttesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson based on
coope ation between the local governments and the private sector organizations which:
. improve the lives of the residents of the region
. expand job opportunities with adequate wages and benefits
. expand the tax base and diversify the economy
. can be absorbed and supported by the natural resources of the area
. which are consistent with and supportive of local plans and strategies.
The P rtnership will be created for a three year "incubator" period during which certain tasks
are to e performed. At the end of the three years, the membership will evaluate the
effecti eness of the Partnership and decide its future.
The ge graphic area served by the Partnership should include the area contained in the planning
distric : the City of Charlottesville and the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa,
and N lson.
!A.fe.l1},h.e., ~~ip :
Memb rship would be based on passage of a resolution to join the consortium and provision of
financi I support to the organization. Membership would be open to:
local governments
institutions of higher education
existing businesses
chambers of commerce
industrial development authorities
planning district commission
...2..-.....- .....m................ ...................................'j~fr~.;;;;;~.R~&i;~;i.&~~o;:;.;i~.D~~~iop.;,;~~t..p~rt~~;;.hip........M.........A~.iio~.si~.i~g;;.P;:;;~i..(9i27~3j
..... ............................. .......................
:: ~o.v.~~~.~~:~,.,!':?r.n:CI!ionof Exe~'!t~~:q()11!11!i~te~'
Each participating organization will appoint at least two persons to serve as members. An
Executive Committee would be elected from the membership. The Executive Committee would
meet at least bimonthly, establish bylaws, and undertake the initial assigned tasks. The
Executive Committee would, as necessary, appoint taSk forces or committees to work on specific
tasks. The Executive Committee would make regular reports to the participating organizations.
...........................................................................................................
:!,~~.?~...!.:~'!?!,."!31?.::~.c:tJo~,,.
Year I.
. Establish the office as the initial point of contact for economic development prospects
to the community
. Identify teams of knowledgeable persons, drawing on resources outside of the
membership as necessary, to meet with prospective businesses or industries
. Recruit private sector members
. Develop an economic/demographic profile of the region and each locality for use by
localities, chambers, educational institutions
. Inventory the area's resources, including all local plans.
n: Analyze employment trends
:a: Analyze education/employment relationship for potential under employment
n: Identify training needs for existing business/industry
:a: Identify small business needs/issues
. Map potential development sites on computer mapping systems for easy access
Year II.
. Publish and distribute Area Profile
:a: socio/economic
:a: labor market
:a: potential for development
:a: government
. Establish a Referral Network to keep prospective businesses and industries in the region
. Evaluate need for Marketing Strategy, define parameters
Year III.
. Develop a regional economic development vision for the future which is based on local
plans and strategies, working with the private and public sectors and area citizens,
businesses and industries
. Evaluate Partnership and decide on continuing at present level, establishing a separate
full time office, or disbanding the operation
. Complete Marketing Strategy, if undertaken
, '
::,~l}g.Te.~.~t~a.te.W:;
Years IV to V.
. Implement Marketing Strategy
. Future direction and activity for the partnership would be agreed to by the participating
members.
Action Strategy ProP;;;;..1(.9/i7fj3f................J.af~~;.R~&io~.~.i.&o;o~.i~.D;;~;;iop~.~.;t.P;rt;~;:;h.ip......................~._...................-...-.....................3
" .
... ..........
. ~Limit~t ons
~..................... ..,... ..
The ne partnership would use the following criteria for undertaking new tasks. Tasks
undert ken should:
. Be consistent with local plans
. Reflect common interests; local interests remain the perogative of local organizations
.... .' ..
and governments
. Not duplicate work of other organizations, but should draw upon expertise in the region
. Provide benefits from an economy of scale
New directions for activity could be initiated by the Partnership with concurrence
from t e member organizations or initiated by one or more of the member organizations, with
the co currence of the members and the Partnership.
H~~q!f!':$:
The ne partnership will require staff assistance for development of information, assistance with
on-goi g organizational tasks, and a continuous point of entry. To date staff assistance has been
provid d by the planning district with direction from the members of the partnership. Staffing
should be regionally oriented. The options reviewed for staffing include:
. Planning District Commission (PDC)
. Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC)
. Combined PDC/PVCC
. New, independent organization and staff
The ad antages of using PDC and/or PVCC are the accountability to localities and the fact that
the sta f is already working on the project. The PDC has worked with the six local governments
to esta lish a regional housing consortium, has conducted several regional plans which have
been i plemented, serves as a state data center, and staffs the Virginia Economic Development
Corpo ation. PVCC has been an educational and training resource for economic development
in the egion and houses a small business center. A new organization, with separate staff would
define he organization as an independent group.
After eighing the alternatives and the associated costs, the JREDP recommends the creation
of a ne partnership with a part time staff, housed in the TJPDC office for an incubator period
of two ears. It is envisioned that in two years the Partnership will become a separate operation.
The P C has provided "incubator" space for other programs which have been spun off into
separa e organizations.
:~st!.~~t. H~l!Ll.dget Needs ~
The bu get outlined on the following page will support part time staff and general office
expens s. The Partnership believes that to be successful, a regional program needs public and
private support as well as the support of the institutions of higher learning in the area. The
Partne ship concluded that the best way to allocate the costs was on a per capita basis, with each
locali responsible for procuring the private support within its boundaries. A number of items
in the udget could be provided as in-kind. As the Partnership matures, fee-based membership
should rovide enough financial resources to staff a full time office. The ability to attract
"'4~-"'-''''''-' .........----...........................................j~ff~.;;;~.R~gi;;~;;i.&;;~~;;.i~..D~~~i~p.;;;~;rt.p~rt~~~.h.ip..........m.--....A~ii~~..si;;;i~gy.p;;~i..(9727i93)
members will be one measure of evaluating the success of the organization.
................................................
::.I3y:4.~~t..~t!.'!!~~.i
Expenses
Item
Director
Secretary
Fringes
Phone
Office
Printing
Travel
SupplieslPostage
Professional Memberships
TOTAL
Revenue
S01Hce
Ammmt
$22,500
$ 9,000
$ 7,875
$ 4,000
$15,000
$ 2,000
$ 3,500
$ 5,000
$ 2,000
$70,875
Amount
Local Government $
Higher Education Institutions $
Industrial Development Authoritiees $
Chambers of Commerce $
Individual BusinesseslIndustry $
TOTAL $70,875
Note: The allocation of the expenses will be detennined by the Charter Members
Population Base:
Source: Center for Public Service
Albemarle
Fluvanna
Greene
Louisa
Nelson
Charlottesville
TOTAL
69,700
13,300
10,900
21,200
13,000
40,300
168,400
Action Strategj Proposal (9i27193f---..Jdfe'"~-;R~&i~~~.I.&;;-;~;;:.i;D.~;~.i~p~~i-p~.rt;~rship-----..---.......-------....------...S
Economic Indicators in the TJPDC Area
~!~,?p.!~J
. From 1970 to 1990, the area population increased about 40%; person ages 25-44 increased from 21 % to
33% of the population, the elderly increased from 10% to 12%, the percentage of children in the
population decreased from 32% to 22%.
. Greene County is the fastest growing county, followed by Albemarle, with the second highest growth
rate and the highest increase in number of people.
. Families are getting smaller (2.6 persons per household). Single mothers are a growing percentage of
families (from 9% in 1970 to 18% in 1990). The number of single mothers below poverty increased from
1,000 to 1,450 from 1970 to 1990, a 45% increase.
. The percentage of mothers who are working increased from 46% in 1970 to 64% in 1980 and 74% in
1990.
..............................
l~q!~~.l:
. The area is better educated now than in 1970: an increased percentage of the population over
twenty-five years of age has completed high school (from 20% in 1970 to 25% in 1990); the percent of
college graduates increased from 16% in 1970 to 28% in 1990. The percentage of people who have not
completed high school dropped from 55% to 27% over the same period.
. The percentage of high school graduates in the region who continue their education increased from 50%
in 1970 to 62% in 1990.
. A 1988 study conducted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District graphically depicts the relationship
between education and employment as can be seen in the following charts.
Effect of Education on Occupation
Occupations
of ~ Sctool llrtx> QJU
Occupations
of HlC1 Sctool Gr""""~
e.24
1.28
1.16
1.12
1.lI6
1.64
!~
Prof/Udl s..ln S>:111 IIJ>. ruw
l1oIr/_ CIer1c.a1 UlsIJlI 1. So<vlOt
eM
Prof /Udl s..J ~ S>:111 w>. r.,...
IV/- CI..-Ic.al Ulstjll 1. lloNloo
~
l.u
l.se
e..e
1.:lII
'.28
e.11
....
Occupations
0( CoII_lnd>o~
.. ..;-........;.. ~ ::'_;\'J} "~'.~ 't'" ~ .. . . '..:".
,.", ~. . ....... ".:: ~ ., ~'.I _ ... t .-..
',' ~...:.l.j.~;~:': "<:. .,'.l. .. . .... ....
~".1 '. h,' :,....... ': '" .. . . - . . .,
'. ...~., .... - . .",' . '. ...
Prof /Udl s..ln SId 11 1.&1>. r__
tlVl- C1er1c.a1 Ulstjll I. &on.1Ot
a
Income:
. Adjusted for inflation and expressed in 1970 dollars, the median income increased in alllocaliti~s from
1970 to 1990: the lowest increase (8%) was in Charlottesville, the highest in Fluvanna (53%), with
Louisa close behind with a 52% increase.
\ Median. Family Income in 1970 DOllar Values
: Source: us Censu~justments to'1970 Values tude by TJPOC
14 K
12K
10 K
8K
OMlle " Fluvanna "
~".;,,::,
1970', """, . .
~ '. - .-. .~':.' .'. ." ~
. ..."
'<.1980 .
':~ma
. From 1980 to 1990 more families moved into the center income range, $25,000 to $50,000, while a lower
percentage of families were at the lower end of the income ranges. Family income is more useful in this
area because it reduces the effect of students on income figures.
. The 1990 median family incomes are: Albemarle, $42,661; Charlottesville, $33,729; Fluvanna, $34,776;
Greene, $33,237; Louisa, $31,294; and Nelson, $27,893.
....................................
/!l1!P.l<??'!!~'!t..i
. The most recent annual report from the Virginia Department of Economic Development shows no
department activity in the planning diStrict area
. . The number of employers in the region increased from 3,468 in 1986 to 4,478 in 1992 according to
Virginia Employment Commission first quarter reports. In that same period the number of employees
rose from 62,963 to 73,823.
. The University of Virginia is the largest employer in the region, employing approximately 12,000 persons
in the academic and medical centers combined. Next in numbers of employees (800-1,500) are local
government, utility companies, State Farm, and several local manufacturing companies
. Many area manufacturing concerns have announced cutbacks in employment in the last year; University
employment has increased slightly.
. The University received 11,292 applications and hired 931 persons for salaried positions in 1992. A
majority (about 60%) of the applicants were from outside of the region.
. Unemployment rose from 4.2% in 1986 to 5.6% in 1992: the greatest increase was in Greene County
(from 5.2% to 8.6%); the other localities increased 1% to 1.5%.
, . . .,., ...}.,.,~'~i'/..:;/' ,.". <\;.t:Z;Hi:::~;!~~)rii~1HK:~~'tf.-~:. '.::, . , . . ....:L ,
. Approximateli.onethifdof the cle~cal,~piploye~s~~(the University have college degrees.
. .>:.:J...>>:.~::.:.,.:. . ,,:';.~,::.:.;S;~~'i~i~f;,A~1:{~;,::~;.:."s.::..-..',.'., ,.: ,'., ".:' , "..' . ,
. Employment has he come more 'se'Mce"aiidietan one'rited. As the economy moves toward service
employment the concerns are: more.of these jobs are part time, fewer of the jobs carry benefits, and the
wage scale for these jobs is on the lower end. .
. . . ." ','
~1::..~"~~"U-:..;,.c......l~"1.C"~7'.......,..,,~~~~:W.Sot'...-=~~"'""-""'O';;''";~~~,,...~..l....i.:~:~:~.~~h~~\_~.,.;?F~d\....~I1.~~,,~1".;:~~~~.;.> ~"-: .":'_t~:-~..: ~:-:~ :-:"> ',~",,:~:'~"7" '-':--'~ ,.' ';..~:_, :1:::;s.::~:'!i.?!.:.':.:s;...~,..~-:;:-;.".:;..-.. ::', ~.
Employment by Occupation, 1970-1990
Tt-.:xnas Jefferson Planning Oi strict. SOurco: US Census
20K
16 K
8K
12 K
4K
o
. 1970 1980 1990
~ A:i1njHgnl1ll ProflTch ~ Sales ~ Clerical ~ Hi SVc rJlJ ow SVc
III Asric ~ Ith ~/P ~ Tmsp/H1
: ~mployment By Industry, 1970-1990
Tlollas Jefferson Planning District. SOurco: US Census
3SK
'30K
; 25 K
: 20 K
15 K
10 K
5K
o
U
1970 1980 1990
. ~ Agricltr ~ Mining ~ Cnstrctn ~ Hanuf. ~ Tmsp/OU VlllA Trade
, III Fin/nS/R ~ SerVices ~ Pblc A:iu '
: Tourism
. According to the Virginia Department of Tourism, $267 million travel dollars were spent in the region in
1990. Albemarle received 36% of the total; Charlottesville, 24%; Fluvanna, 6%; Louisa, 8%; Nelson,
25%; Greene, 2%.
. Approximately 50,000 prospective students and their parents visit the University of Virginia annually.
......................................
Taxable Sales!
...........................n.......~
. In 1980 dollars, taxable sales have increased 33.5% from 1980 to 1992. The greatest increase is in
Albemarle County ( + 75.1 %). Changes are shown in the chart.
Taxable Sales from 1980 to 1992
In 1980 lXlllars; Soorce:Va.Dept.TaxaUon; Graph, TJPO:
Percent Change, Taxable Sales 1980-1992
In 1'lOO Dollars. Graph by TJPOC
3S0H
300H
2S0H
200H
150 H
100 H
50H
o
..
~ ~.-..-..-.._.._.-.._~.. ..-.
~ -'
.......-..--..
........
.......
,.....---. - ------ -- --.____.____r____
1980 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1996 1991 1992
-Aib;;;rle COVille fl~ Greene Loo.1sa Nelson
AI OOoar'le CO vB Ie Fluvama Greene
II Soorce:Va .lXlpt. TaxaUoo
Loot sa
Nel son
. The Albemarle County share of regional taxable sales increased from 35% in 1981 to 44% in 1992; in
I . Louisa County from 6% to 7%; while the City of Charlottesville saw a decrease in share from 51 % to
I 42% in the same period. Greene experienced a slight increase in share; Fluvanna and Nelson Counties a
slight decrease.
. The major growing revenue source for the City of Charlottesville is the money received from the
Revenue Sharing Agreement with Albemarle County.
,
,
: I
if-..L., -------..-~~-,_------_.
.____.,._____~_----.__..-_____-____--u _.. _ ..
. SelVices :
.......n............
. The area is served by two airports; the Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport and the Louisa County
Airport. Last year 143,000 passengers passed through the gates at the Charlottesville/Albemarle
Airport. On a daily basis, 28 to 30 planes arrive and depart.
. Two major hospitals serve the area: the University of Virginia Hospital and Medical Schoool, and the
Martha Jefferson Hospital, a community hospital.
Utilities
. Public water and sewer are provided in the urban area by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority;
portions of the rural areas are served by three local and one regional authorities; the greater portion of
the rural areas rely on groundwater and septic systems.
. The area has two landfills (Ivy and Louisa) with at least a 15 year capacity; Greene County is developing
a compo sting system, Nelson and Fluvanna are evaluating solutions.
. ......................
/!~l!!J!!?.!
. 1990 median housing values in the region are: Albemarle, $111,200; Charlottesville, $85,600; Fluvanna,
$75,100; Greene, $73,700; Louisa, $64,400; and Nelson, $53,100.
. The 1992 real property tax rates per $100 are: Albemarle, $0.72; Charlottesville, $1.11; Fluvanna, $0.63;
Greene, $0.78; Louisa, $0.64, and Nelson $0.67.
. The median contract rents are Albemarle, $454; Charlottesville, $391; Fluvanna, $329; Greene, $314;
Louisa, $283; and Nelson, $206.
............................h........................................................
1ndustrial Parks~,
. There are two Industrial Development Authority Parks in the region. The Louisa County park is served
by an .airport, has water and sewer, and contains 12 firms, with 300 employees, approximately half of the
park's 532 acres is available; and the Greene County Park, a 70 acre facility with water, has 85 acres
remaining. Private industrial parks are located in Charlottesville, Albemarle, and Fluvanna.
. The University Real Estate Foundation is building a research park in Albemarle County at the southern
edge of the City, and is also planning a Research Park near the Charlottesville/Alhemarle Airport.
~
~
cor
. AV
~'r
ol-
o'r
~o
~'r
~.,
.
et_v"'."
,. ,.,..
,t .....
.. -,
, .
--.--.----
........ -,...
. _..., _#,,~~._. '~~,.""
nlL/
David P. wennan
Olarlott ville
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
CharlQttesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S, Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jo ett
Walter F, Perkins
White Hall
Forrest R. M rshall. Jr.
$colts lie
Sally H. Thomas
Samuel Miller
MEMORANDUM
Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance
Ella W. Carey, Clerk ~~
April 7, 1994
Appropriation Requests
At its meeting on April 6, 1994, the Board of Supervisors took the
ollowing actions:
Agenda Item No. 5.5. Request from Peachtree Baseball League to improve
aseball field at Greenwood Park. APPROVED the transfer of $12,000 to a new
ode entitled Crozet Park/Greenwood Community Center Youth Baseball Improve-
ents and requested staff to provide a list itemizing the use of the $12,000.
Item No. 14a. Appropriation: School Food Service Program,
(Form #930065) APPROVED. Attached is the signed appropriation
Agenda Item No. 14b. Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony Point Elementary
(Form #930066) APPROVED. Attached is the signed appropria-
Agenda Item No. 14c. Woodbrook PTO Donation, $2,300.00.
PPROVED. Attached is the signed appropriation form.
(Form #930067)
Item No. 14d.
(Form #930068)
GE Foundation Grant for Middle School Science,
APPROVED. Attached is the signed appropriation
Agenda Item No. 14e. Albemarle 250th Birthday Celebration, $14,235.
PROPRIATED $14,235 from the Board's contingency. Attached is a copy of the
perwork on this request. Please provide the necessary appropriation form.
tachments
Roxanne White
Pat Mullaney
Dr. Paskel
*
Printed on recycled paper
/J?PROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCAL YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930070
TYPE OF APPROPRIA~'ION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVERTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
GENERAL
PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TRANSFER TO FUND 250TH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION.
EXPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
1100011010560415' 250TH BIRTHDAY $14,235.00
1100095000999990 CONTINGENCY FOR BUDGET ADJ. (14,235.00)
TOTAL
$0.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
************************************************************************
$0.00
TOTAL
$0.00
************************************************************************
REQUESTING COST CENTER:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
APPROVALS:
SIGNATURE
DATE
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
?-' - Z-2 -?~
.
Y-.:J';;-fcj
r~OARD OF SUPERVISORS
...
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
t_
C,
/ (14
AGENDA T
Appropri
Food Services Fund
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 1994
ITEM HUMBER:
:' )1 J '\ i 1// _ _..-----
t -j l-1 . 1/ r~~-Il (/ ./ /{,,;
i i _ ''-.-' ~- i...._ c.. I
ACTION:-1L-
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
Appropri
ATTACHMENTS:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
Huff, Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGRO
The Sch
1994.
has approved and requested a reappropriation for this program on March 14,
ON:
Services Fund had an unrestricted fund balance of $143,205.73 at the end of the
3 fiscal year. The reappropriation of the remaining funds will be used to offset
lated to operating the Food Service Program for Albemarle County Schools.
of appropriation form #930065 in the amount of $143,205.73
94.041
.- '~-...-...-~~~~,,,,,..,,... ..~..._",,-~....... ,_"'"'""""""' """""..-."",.,..,.r-to~ _~_~._,..
i .
1--=-~_~~.-...j
D OF SUPERVISORS
I
-
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930065
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
FOOD SERVICES
SE OF APPROPRIATION:
ROPRIATION OF REMAINING FUND BALANCE
XPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*******************************************************************
63100600200 FOOD SUPPLIES $143,205.73
TOTAL
$143,205.73
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2300 51000510100 APPROPRIATION - FUND BALANCE $143,205.73
TOTAL
$143,205.73
**** *******************************************************************
STING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
OF FINANCE
DATE
OF SUPERVISORS
3f30lQ"'i
1-/;-9r
)
~\
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
C:.4
'Z'I',
j'(!~,l
AGENDA TITLE:
Appropriation for Teacher Incentive Grant
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 1994
ITEM HUMBER:
{jLI ,(t left, Z!iJ
ACTION:---1L-
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT/~ROPOSAL/REOUEST:
Request approval of $90 for a Teacher
Incentive Grant
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
Appropriation #930066
ATTACHMENTS:
---
STAFF CONTACT ( S) :
Messrs. tucker, Paskel, Huff, Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The School Board has approved and requested appropriation for this program on March 14, 1994.
DISCUSSION:
The Teacher Incentive Grant Program has been established to help strengthen the quality of
arts education into the basic curriculum of the classroom. The purpose of this project is
to expose the children of stony Point Elementary School to a cultural performance of the
"Homecoming" by local artists.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #930066 for $90 for the Teacher Incentive Grant
Program.
94.042
'" ,-:'1
;{ :.1
-
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISCJ~L YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930066
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE~TISEMENT REQUIRED?
YES
NO
x
FUND
MISCELLANEOUS SCHOOL GRANTS
PURPDSE OF APPROPRIATION:
TEAC~ER INCENTIVE GRANT FOR STONY POINT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
~XPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****~*******************************************************************
1310~60211312500 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - INSTRUCTIONAL $90.00
TOTAL
$90.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
****~*******************************************************************
231 0 ~ 2 4 000240264 VEA GRANT 941043 $ 90 . 00
TOTAL
$90.00
****~*******************************************************************
REQU~STING COST CENTER:
APPRDVALS:
DIRE~TOR OF FINANCE
EDUCATION
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
///I/l~
ttu t1! t~/
DATE
3/30IQY
1- & - 9V
../
""'"
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
i{ i I (T I
AGENDA T TLE:
Woodbroo School Appropriation
AGENDA DATE:
April 6, 1994
ITEM HUMBER:
Cj/I t.C{{r , 2-3/
ACTION:-1L-
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT
Request
Teaching
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
Appropri
STAFF CO
Messrs.
Huff, Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
--
ATTACHMENTS:
approved and requested appropriation for this program on March 14, 1994.
DISCUSS ON:
The Wood rook Elementary School received a donation from the Woodbrook PTO to fund a science
room te ching assistant position (6 hours per week) and provide a tutor from the Learning
Center 0 tutor a student.
RECO
Staff
approval of Appropriation #930067 for $2,300 for Woodbrook School.
94.043
'\7
nAli [;
; '!iin
. )
~""."'''-'''''''-'''--'''----,--,-,,-....,.jf
..
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FISC L YEAR
93/94
NUMBER
930067
TYPE OF APPROPRIATION
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADVE TISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
FUND
EDUCATION
PURP SE OF APPROPRIATION:
WOOD ROOK PTO DONATION
XPENDITURE
COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
1210 61101114100 SALARIES - TEACHER AIDE $1,200.00
1210 61101210000 FICA 100.00
1221 61101312500 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - INSTRUCTIONAL 1,000.00
TOTAL
$2,300.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
**** *******************************************************************
2200 18100181140 DONATION $2,300.00
TOTAL
$2,300.00
**** *******************************************************************
STING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
OF SUPERVISORS
DATE
TOR OF FINANCE
".3l~lot'4
Lj- t-9v
.-
~
.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
LJ. (Ii '9l.j
ACTION:-1L-
ITEM HUMBER:
(/L((\LIOlf '2..32
INFORMATION:
AGENDA DATE:
Grant for Middle School Science April 6, 1994
SUBJECT
Request
Foundati
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CO
Messrs.
Huff, Breeden
REVIEWED BY:
Appropri
ATTACHMENTS:
approved and requested appropriation for this program on March 14, 1994.
DISCUSSI
This is second installment of the GE Foundation Grant for Middle School Science.
Albemarl County Schools, in partnership with GE Fanuc, Charlottesville City Schools, and
Greene ounty Schools, was awarded $46,500 over a three year period to implement Extra-
Curricular Science, a project designed to increase parent involvement in middle school
students' science learning, to provide opportunities for selected middle school students to
receive entoring from volunteer scientists, and to increase opportunities for students who
have a igh level of interest in science.
approval of Appropriation #930068 for $14,500 for the GE Foundation Grant.
94.044
..
~
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
FIS L YEAR
TYP OF APPROPRIATION
93/94
NUMBER
930068
ADDITIONAL
TRANSFER
NEW
x
ADV RTISEMENT REQUIRED ?
YES
NO
x
GE FOUNDATION
OSE OF APPROPRIATION:
OUNDATION GRANT FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL SCIENCE
EXPENDITURE
CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
********************************************************************
132 661311160300 STIPENDS - STAFF $7,000.00
132 661311210000 FICA 500.00
132 661311601300 SUPPLIES - INSTRUCTIONAL 7,000.00
TOTAL
$14,500.00
REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
*** ********************************************************************
232 618100186025
GE FOUNDATION GRANT
$14,500.00
TOTAL
$14,500.00
********************************************************************
ESTING COST CENTER:
EDUCATION
BO
SUPERVISORS
SIGNATURE
,/J> If' ",;."J'~
'.;:-':1" ,. i '.' A'
~ -:' ./ j ,I.. t _ ...11.
/ // c./;.:.~.t::'..;.r. ,/ '1' /f:..+-(-
t~ Ld (la'u.;;
DATE
OF FINANCE
~~'-1
4-1~91
ALBEMARLE COUN1Y PUBLIC SCHOOLS
Memorandum
March 21, 1994
::::: :: ::::::: ::::.::n::;:::::~::~~
Request for Appropriation jI~~
At its meeting on March 14, 1994, the School Board approved the
following:
. The reappropriation of the remaining fund balance for the School
Food Service Program. The program had a fund balance of
$143,205.73 at the end of the 1992-93 fiscal year. The funds will
be used to offset the cost related to operating the Food Service
Program for Albemarle County Schools.
. The reappropriation of $7,229.00 for the Building Rental Fees
collected as of December 31, 1993. School Board Policy KG-R
stipulates that 40% of building rental fees collected be distributed
to the rented facility to be used toward equipment replacement. As
of December 31, 1993, a total amount of $18,072.00 had been
collected from building rental fees.
. The appropriation of a Teacher Incentive Grant for Stony Point
Elementary School in the amount of $90.00. The Teacher
Incentive Grant Program has been established to help strengthen
the quality of arts education into the basic curriculum of the
classroom. The purpose of the project is to expose the children
to a cultural performance of the "Homecoming" by local artists.
. The appropriation of $2,300.00 from the Woodbrook PTO. Woodbrook
Elementary School received a donation from the Woodbrook PTO to
fund a science room teaching assistant position (6 hours per week)
at $6.50 per hour; and to provide a tutor from the Learning Center
to tutor a student.
. The appropriation of $14,500.00 for the second installment of the GE
Foundation Grant for Middle School Science. At the September 28,
1992 Meeting, the School Board approved the first installment of
$17,500 for the GE Foundation Grant. Albemarle County Schools, in
partnership with GE Fanuc, Charlottesville City Schools, and Greene
County Schools was awarded $46,500 over a three year period to
implement Extra-Curricular Science, a project designed to increase
parent involvement in middle school students' science learning;
provide opportunities for selected middle school students to receive
mentoring from volunteer scientists; and increase opportunities
for students who have a high level of interest in science.
It is requested that the Board of Supervisors amend the appropriation
o dinance to receive and disburse these funds as displayed on the attachment.
fmm
x Melvin Breeden
, Eft Koonce
vt!:lla Carey
nditures
3000-63100-600200
VENUE
2000-15000-150201
PENDITURE
2216-61101-800101
1 2201-61101-800101
1-2214-61101-800101
1-2206-61101-800101
1-2215-61101-800101
1-2207-61101-800101
1-2210-61101-800101
1-2212-61101-800101
1-2251-61101-800101
1-2252-61101-800101
1-2253-61101-800101
1-2301-61101-800101
-2302-61101-800101
nditures
-2100-61101-114100
-2100-61101-210000
-2212-61101-312500
Albemarle County Public Schools
SCHOOL FOOD SERVICE PROGRAM
Appropriation-Fund Balance
Food Supplies
BUILDING RENTAL FEES COLLECTED
General Property Rental
Agnor-Hurt Mach/Equip-Replacement
Broadus Wood Mach/Equip-Replacement
Cale Mach/Equip-Replacement
M-Lewis MaCh/Equipment-Replacement
Murray Elem MaCh/Equip-Replacement
Red Hill MaCh/Equip-Replacement
S-Robinson Mach/Equip-Replacement
Woodbrook Mach/Equip-Replacement
Burley Mach/Equip-Replacement
Henley MaCh/Equip-Replacement
Jouett Mach/Equip-Replacement
AHS Mach/Equip-Replacement
WAHS MaCh/Equip-Replacement
TEACHER INCENTIVE GRANT - #94-1043
Grant #94-1043
Prof. Services Instructional
PTO DONAT ION-WOOD BROOK ELEMENTARY
Donation
Salaries-Teacher Aide
FICA
Professional Svcs.-Inst.
$143,205.73
$143,205.73
$7,229.00
$436.00
84.00
24.00
138.00
108.00
167.00
180.00
350.00
80.00
120.00
844.00
4,532.00
166.00
$90.00
$90.00
$2,300.00
$1,200.00
100.00
1,000.00
venue
3206-18100-186025
enditure
3206-61311-160300
1 3206-61311-210000
1-3206-61311-601300
GE FOUNDATION GRANT
GE Grant
$14,500.00
stipends - Staff/CUr.
FICA
Inst/Rec. Supplies
$7,000.00
$500.00
$7,000.00
.~
- -,''''' '
L r . () i (lei
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
250th Birthday of Albemarle County
AGENDA DATE: April 6, 1994
/JTE(.~ ~{~MB~~:,
/ ~'-.. .' - I .' c_ I I.. . ,,' '~
INFORMATION:
ACTION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
-
REVIEWED BY:
BA K R D: Beginning this September, Albemarle County will celebrate its official 250th birthday. September 4
starts off the celebration year with the anniversary of the enactment by the Virginia General Assembly for the division
of Goochlan County and the establishment of the County seat at Scottsville. Subsequent dates throughout the fall
and into the pring of 1995 celebrate other moments in Albemarle's history, such as the first meeting of the county
court, the fir t meeting of county government, etc. To begin planning how the County might want to celebrate this
special year, hoc committee * was formed in December. The Committee, with Steven Meeks as the elected
Chairman, et four times to explore and discuss various ideas and projects to propose as the official celebration for
Albemarle's 50th birthday year.
DI I N The Committee discussed various ways to celebrate these events, ideas that ranged from an elaborate
celebration t historical tours to school essay contests, trying to keep in mind projects that would involve as many
citizens as p ssible, projects that would have a lasting meaning or importance to the county and its citizens, and
projects that ould not be a significant cost to the taxpayers. After much discussion, the committee finalized the
following id as for your approval:
· The Town of Scottsville has already initiated extensive plans for a 4-day 250th birthday celebration over Labor
Day Wee end, complete with plays, music, tours, games, open houses, and picnics, all culminating with an offical
ceremony ith state, county and local officials on Monday, September 5. The Committee felt strongly that the
County sh uld not plan a separate event of its own, but should join with the Town of Scottsville and assist them
with their fforts for this weekend celebration. Scottsville has requested $2,000 from the County to help cover the
costs of th tent rental over the 4-day weekend.
· The Co ittee also felt strongly that public funds commited to the commemoration of the 250th birthday should
provide so ething of permanent value and future benefit to the county and its citizens. After much discussion, the
Committe agreed that restoring the Earl of Albemarle portrait and preserving the county's historical documents
related to is time was apriority. The portrait of the Earl, a 1931 copy of a period portrait in England hanging
now at the courthouse, is in dire need of cleaning. Other archival material at the courthouse, including several
document (see attached) related to the Earl and his successors, are also in need of repair, deacidification and
remountin in order to preserve them for future display.
ofessional conservators and restorers have provided estimates on the costs of restoring the portrait and
the doc ents, as well as the cost of displaying these historical documents in a permanent exhibit. The
committ e's recommendation is that the painting and the documents be professionally restored and preserved and
then bro ght down to the County Office Building to be shown in a permanent wall-hung display cabinet in the
central 10 by. The estimated costs to restore the painting and repair and conserve the documents and photographs
is appro iIl'l~telY $4,000. The cost to permanently display all the artifacts, text and photographs in a
proressi nally designed and mounted wall cabinet is $5,200.
· A dedicat' on ceremony would be planned for the morning of Saturday, November 12 at the County Office
Building 0 present the restored portrait and the permanent display to the County. The estimated cost for the
reception and associated printing/mailing/display costs is $2,500.
· The third idea or project is to prepare a time capsule, similar to what the City did for their 200th birthday, to be
buried on the grounds ofthe County Office Building and opened in the year 2144, the 300th birthday of Albemarle
County. he cost of placing a small, one foot square capsule in the ground with a granite marker would be
approxim tely $500. lfthe concept is agreeable to the Board, it may be that much ofthis cost could be donated to
the Count
The total cos for the above projects is $14,235 with the hope that some ofthe costs may be recouped from
community ontributions to these efforts. The current committee headed by Chairperson Steven Meeks will continue
to provide th oversight for the restoration work and the display, as well coordinating efforts with Scottsville for the
September c lebration and planning the dedication event at the County Office Building.
RE
ends approval of$14,235 from the Board's current year contingency account to fund the following:
Cont ibution to the Scottsville celebration on Labor Day Weekend
Resto ation of the Earl of Albemarle portrait and other historical items
Desi n and construction of a permanent display for artifacts, photographs
and rinted text
Time capsule and granite marker
Misc llaneous copying, postage, display, reception expenses
Total cost
$2,000
$4,035
$5,200
$500
$2.500
$14,235
* ommittee Members
Mr. Steven . Meeks, Chairman
Mrs. Charlo e Y. Humphris
Ms. Melinda rierson, Albemarle County Historical Society
Ms. Roxanne W. White
Mr. Chick M ran
Ms. Lettie E. eher
Ms. Diane B. Mullins
Mr. Tim Sm 1, Scottsville Representative
Attachment
c: committee embers
..' '.
Albemarle
County
Historical
Society
29 March 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Roxanne White, Albemarle 250th Birthday Committee, and the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
Melinda B. Frierson, Executive Director~
The McIntire Building
200 Second Street, NE FROM:
Charlottesville, Virginia
22902-5245 RE:
Library
Charlottesville- Albemar Ie
Historical Collection
operated in partnership
with Jefferson-Madison
Regional Library
Office
(804) 296-1492
Library
(804) 296-7294
Budget for permanent display proposed for the
lobby of the Albemarle County Office Building
At the instruction of the Albemarle 250th Birthday Committee, Chairman
Steven Meeks and I have obtained estimates for creating a permanent exhibit in the
lobby of the County Office Building about the creation of Albemarle County. This
includes moving historical items now displayed in the lobby of the Albemarle County
Courthouse and incorporating them into an interpretive presentation.
The most important item is a 40" x 50" oil portrait of the 2nd Earl of Albemarle
(for whom the county is named), which is a 1931 copy of a period portrait in England
and is framed in a fine eighteenth century frame. There are also several documents
relating to the Earl, his successors, and this portrait. All of these items are in serious
need of conservation. The new exhibit proposed will feature a wall display with
additional material and text to tell the story of the county's founding.
BUOCET
Restoration of oil portrait
Repair and consolidation of 18th c. frame
Conservation of documents and photographs
Display panel (8'x 3') including artifacts,
photographs, printed text
Brass stanchions and velvet divider and
text panel to accompany portrait
$1,600.
$1,900.
$535.
$4,200.
$995.
TOTAL REQUESTED
$9,230
I MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION
P SUANT TO SECTION 2.1-344(A) OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA:
,,,,REf
TO DISCUSS j:w6 PERSONNEL MATTERS UNDER SUB PARAGRAPH (1), ONE
o,..t,
GARDING THE RETAINING OF LEGAL COUNSEL; AND TIIE O'fIffiR REGARDING
SSIBLE APPOINTMENTS BY THE BOARD' A,uA "Tt4l dT....6,t ~tGA.c.O ,/'1' A ~6SSI8....e.
d.4.,.,.,.,... , N
ol6AI"L"lAT (0 N of Y OS'T A F P fO'SfT\O S.
TO DISCUSS TWO MATTERS UNDER SUB PARAGRAPH (3) REGARDING THE
QUISITION OF PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR A LANDFILL CLOSURE AND THE
A QUISITION OF PROPERTY FOR A GREENWAY; AND
UNDER SUB PARAGRAPH (7), TO CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND
M TTERS WHICH REQUIRE SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE, ONE CONCERNING AN
PEAL OF A ZONING DECISION AND ONE CONCERNING THE APPEAL OF A
AFF MEMBERS REGARDING TWO MATTERS OF PROBABLE LITIGATION, OR
ING DECISION.
MOTION: Mrs. Thomas
SECOND: Mrs. Humphris
MEETING DATE: April 7, 1994
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has
convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an
affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provi-
sions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1
requires a certification by the
Supervisors that such executive
conformity with Virginia law;
of the Code of Virginia
Albemarle County Board of
meeting was conducted in
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County
Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of
each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters
lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia
law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this
certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public
business matters as were identified in the motion convening
the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES: Mr. Perkins, Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris
and Mr. Marshall.
NAYS: None.
[For each nay vote, the substance of the departure from the
requirements of the Act should be described.]
ABSENT DURING VOTE: Mr. Martin.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
County
e
isors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
I j , 1/,;
,e, ,LI,C' (,c,II/,
~ ,,"""~' /, l
. I, , "a/7~; .j'"T;~( '1 2/ j
L~HC '~Lll;, '?~.:,-F1
MEMORANDUM
E:
Board of Supervisors
/;7)1 -; U
Ella W. Carey v (j'v'
March 31, 1994
Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions
oormans Scenic River Advisor Board: One vacancy. Mr. Fred Landess resigned from this board. This
v cancy has been advertised and the deadline for applications was March 30, 1994. Listed below are the names of
t e applicants and a copy of their application is attached. The name of the person recommended to be appointed
w'll be forwarded to the Governor.
Mr. David N. Easton
Ms. Mary-Scott Blake Birdsall
fln1 ()tI i\.\-e ~
I \' i
E C/jng
}:ILE:l:J 1(lkL[ lUUllI'i
F,):< : :):1:1- .:":II:,.~,Jt::J
1 I.. if ..'J .'yl
. '/,
; It':
I . _.~.
County of Alben1arle
r.!/ll~lTYOF,l\LFJF '!'::;! 1
r ' .,.. ..
, ,,,,.
,\li\:~ :. ,.. E)' i;
Offtcc of Board of County Supcrvisors
:\01 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville, V A 22902-4596
(804) 296-5843
APPLICATION TO SERVE ON BOARD I COl'vlMlSSION / COMlvUTTEE
(plellse type or print)
13o~rd I C(lmmi::: ion I C0111111 ittc(; /VJ 00 r<. /VI AN 5 ,?C. eN I (~ R. i vert A d v I .~ 0 R. '( 6b A Q... D
Applicant's Nallle Jt1 A P.. Y ~ S co r r f3 Lf.} I<\.c. B / Po. ~ S ^ L L HOll)c Phone <{ 0 ~. 7..13 . 41 <g 1
HnmcAddr(;~~ L or1-..o F /.'2..cx:l5" KouTe {~ r.Jlfwloffr-5vitLc. \IlL' ;2..2-'10/
~ , j
Mngi:;lcrial Dist iet in which YC1Uf horne rcsidence is located :rA-L-L-c J;:, u-C T -r
Employer ~c.. Phone 1 0 4 . ;2.1 3 . <; 'I{ ..) S-
n\lsim;::;::;^tltlrcs' .5L..i..eL:fOA.d FA-RM I !;o~ 2s-' /0:.v...1c 10> / Ch{)-rL.()(k.~v;IIc.)-Va.... verol
DaleofEmpluy lcntJ"'uNt:j 11~.I( Occupatit,)Il/Titlc ESTATE. ANd I<,(}KIILI-ANd ;11/1N^G-~f1c",-r
Ycars!\csidentilAlbcmar!.::Cuunty ~f-f-Yoxl/v1llr~I-'( 30 (-e.t>-f-"5: /-13 T. fi<t.SCN-S, ;Lo'(1\5 ~~~~
Spollse's Name OHN fl. P.J I P-.. b .5 A LL J1L Nllmber of Childrcn :2. it'D U LI ;N F/-Df)../ A
Educatiun (Dcl,'T 'cs and Graduation Dates) f::,. S . E. dv-. c.. A -r LON tJ. \I. A '-J /1 &:, (.,
';; \.i -<)
, ."
M..<<.ol.b~Jshi)s in Fratel'll ilI
ST. ?A\lL~
Fit f,.;11/ f\J G-J 0
fllJ:::inc:::::: -: Jnd /01' Social Gn)lIj2;i
&PtSLoPAL c....auR..cH {15"D-11~lJJ.
1-< ES 'rJ t Cot<. H UNJ CLUE> S I G-IU:::'r:. N c. ~o F -r
GLv!3
Puhlic C":ivic'l rl r: . rit<lble Office Clncl / or Olht~r ^t':liYi.1jes or 111(cre~t~
VVA 'Je...F EIZS.c>,..{ Sc.hoLkt<--S!<..e... JDNo....l Se..Le.JiON. (O/VtM;/IEE I c...ff/\/tV
V V It C O,M ~;v' Nt II L-TH C E NTEJ? -p Li tr.'""Y 11'(<" y -r Ct-....I-t-l.A..fVl.L.. CHr..-N (,-~ .SO/11I"JVN.'- ty ~;~~;.~r
PiedMoNT I'i.ViR.oI'I/VlE:^lfltl COlll'u.;r -1 C.;ti1~f.N\ ~ALbe.VMlt-ylc/ A6-1'vd:J-ev'>h.;pS
j'td4ih'bNNl iNfcytt;~.I(: fA IZENI- cHr!-D l'(SuC$ FFDR.i),rfI3Le /fDcJ~iN)
Reason(s) fi)r D .'~irc l() Sc' '~.Qn this BO;Jrd / COl11mi~!;inn I C:nmo1itlce since 1950 my parents, and
en from '79 my husband and I have owned land along Albemarle
unty rivers. Currently, JHB III and I own roughly 3 miles along
e Moormans and Mechums. All of our river frontage on the
ormans (over 1 mile) is protected by a permanent open space
e sement held by the V.a.F. Personal experience, feelings of (over)
lilt:: ll\(i,mll,\!I(lll pruvi(kd on llllS application will be: rcl~ased 1u the public up n reCluest.
~
Signature
;?3 /1~cl-. /111
J)nte
Relurn to :
lerk, Board of County Sui)crvisors
Ibemarle County
4 I McIntire Road
(harl()ttesville, V A 22902-4596
~
Reason(s) for Desire to Serve on this Board/Commission/Committee:
Complete Statement
since 1950 my parents, and then from '79 my husband and I have
owned land along Albemarle County rivers. Currently, JHB III and
I own roughly 3 miles along the Moormans and Mechums. All of our
river frontage on the Moormans (over 1 mile) is protected by a
permanent open space easement held by the V.O.F. Personal
experience, feelings of association and respect for the river's
beauty, ecology, habitat, history and recreational pleasures lead
me to respectfully request the opportunity to participate in the
active stewardship of this Albemarle County resource.
~
.,~
.",
David p, &> nnan
Charlottes iIIe
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Office of Board of Supervisors
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
(804) 296:5843 FAX (804) 972-4060
Charles S, Martin
R ivanna
Charlotte y, umphris
Jack Jou tt
Walter F, Perkins
While Hall
Forrest R. Ma shall, Jr.
Scoftsvi e
Sally H, Thomas
Samuel Miller
April.8, 1994
e Honorable Betsy Davis Beamer
S cretary of the Commonwealth
PO. Box 2454
ichmond, VA 23201-2454
ear Ms. Beamer:
At its meeting on April 6, 1994, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County unanimously
r commended Ms. Mary-Scott Blake Birdsall be appointed to the Moonnans Scenic River Advisory Board to
r place Mr. Fred Landess who resigned.
If further infonnation is needed, you may contact this office at (804) 296-5843.
~h;;c
Ell, w. C'''y ~
Clerk, CMC 0
WC/jng
c: Mary-Scott Blake Birdsall
Schelford Farm
Box 25, Route 16
Charlottesville, VA 2290 1
*
Printed on recycled paper
/
-
McGUIRE\\OoDS
BATfLE&BooTHE
World Center
Suite 9000, I I West Main Street
Norfolk, A 23510-1655
Court Square Building
Post Office Box 1288 The Anny and Navy Club Building
Charlottesville. Virginia 22902-1288 1627 Eye Street, N.W.
__. ~ __ ,_ W,.hlnatoq, DC 20006-4007
Phone: (804) 977-2500 (VoicefI'DD) !~nl J~@__~,n., .."_~~~";:S;C:~;~I:~64
Fax: (804) 980-222Z ; .. ," i
Direct Dial: (804) 977.2541
One lames Center
90 I East Cary Street
Riclunood, VA 23219-4030
,
November 10, 1993 ~~~OA~D OF SUPERVISOB~
il$8oc/ated ojJice:
P.O. Box 4930
. Ifahnhofstruse 3
~2 Zurich. Switzerland
T e Honorable Douglas L. Wilder
T e Governor's Mansion
R'chmond, Virginia 23219
Re: Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board
Governor Wilder:
Because of a possible conflict arising from my position as
unsel for the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, I believe it
st to resign from the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board.
e Authority owns and operates the Sugar Hollow Reservoir as a
p rt of its raw water production for the County of Albemarle and
C'ty of Charlottesville, which reservoir impounds water of the
M ormans River. Although I do not think there is a direct
c nf1ict, the attempt to have the upper portion of the Moormans
River declared an exceptional waterway under VR 680-21-01.3.C.
c uld possibly conflict with the position of the Authority in
r gard to its reservoir operation.
I have enjoyed very much being a part of the. Advisory Board
appreciate the opportunity to have served on it.
Sin~erely yours,
at-~/)J. ~/)~
Fred S. Landess
All Members of the Moormans Scenic River Advisory Board
~~R. G. Gibbons, Dept. of Conservation and Recreation
vMX. David Bowerman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
U \2541\LTR\WILDER
FY 94-95
Board of Supervisors
Proposed Budget
Budget Summary
March 29, 1994
Bud2et Calendar
March 2 - County Executive's Proposed Budget distributed to the Board
March 9 - Public Hearing on FY 94-95 Proposed Budget
March 14 - Work Session - General Government Departments
March 16 - Work Session - Community Agencies
March 24 - Work Session - School Division & General Review
April 6 - Public Hearing on Proposed Budget and Tax Levy
April14 - Adoption of FY94-95 Budget
April 25 - Final Adoption of FY94-95 School Budget
June 1 - Appropriation of Funds for FY94-95
Budget Process
Why do we budget?
The major purpose of budgeting is to formally convert the
County's long range plans and policies into services and
programs. The budget provides detailed financial informa-
tion on the costs of services and the expected revenues for
the upcoming fiscal year. The budget process also provides
a forum for a review of progress made in the current year
and for a review of the levels of service provided by local
government.
What is the budget?
The budget is divided into three major parts, each with
separate documents and public hearings.
The Operating Budget is the total and complete budget used
to finance all of the day to day operations of local govern-
ment and schools. The total operating budget consists of
several major sections including general government opera-
tions, school operations, school debt service, CIP transfer,
and the City-County revenue sharing. Funding for this
budget is derived from taxes, fees, licenses, fines, and State
and Federal revenue.
The School Budget is used to describe the operations of the
County's schools. The School Budget is prepared by the
Superintendent's office and is approved by the School
Board. The schools have their own budget calendar which
is separate from that of other budgets. Funding for the
School Budget is derived from transfers from the Operating
Budget, fees, and intergovernmental revenue (i.e. State and
Federal funding).
The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is used to pur-
chase or finance the construction of capital goods from the
building of schools, parks, and roads to the upgrading of
computer and phone system equipment. Funding for these
projects is obtained from bond issues (long term debt which
is only borrowed for the building of school projects) and
from transfers from the Operating Budget.
What are the State requirements?
The Commonwealth of Virginia requires that all localities
meet certain budget guidelines. All localities within Vir-
ginia must have a fiscal year beginning on July I and ending
on June 30 and must approve a balanced budget. The School
Board must approve the School Budget by May 1 or within
15 days of receiving estimates of State funding, whichever
shall later occur. The Board of Supervisors must approve
the Operating Budget and set the tax rate by July 1. The
adoption of the Operating Budget and the tax rate requires
the Board to hold a public hearing and to advertise this
hearing no less than 7 days in advance. Although these are
the minimum State requirements, the County has tradition-
ally adopted the budget by April 15 in order to establish
teacher contracts and to set the personal property tax prior
to the tax bill mailing date. The official appropriation of
funds takes place prior to July 1.
WhRt is the budget process?
The County's Operating Budget schedule begins in October
with a public hearing on the community's needs in the
coming fiscal year. In November, the Board provides the
County Executive with financial guidelines for the develop-
ment of the budget. In mid-November, the County Execu-
tive's Office develops budget instructions, based upon the
Board's guidance to the County Executive, and sends these
instructions to all departments and agencies. In mid-Decem-
ber, departments and community agencies must submit
budgets to the County Executive's Office. From mid-De-
cember to mid-January, the executive staff reviews budget
requests and develops budget related questions.
In January, departments are scheduled to meet with the
executive budget staff to review and answer all questions
relating to their budget requests and, from these discussions,
the executive staff develops recommendations ranging from
the funding of new programs to the reduction of funding of
current programs. A Program Review Committee composed
of staff representatives from Human Services, Planning,
Police, Education, and the Planning District Commission
reviews requests from human services agencies and makes
funding recommendations.
In mid-February, the School Superintendent submits the
School Budget to the County Executive. At the end of
February, the County Executive makes the necessary adjust-
ments to balance the budget and staff prints the County
Executive's Recommended Budget. The budget this year
was presented to the Board on March 2 and a public hearing
on the County Executive's recommendation is held on
March 9.
After the public hearing on March 9, the Board begins a
detailed review of each area ofthe budget and recommends
specific cuts or additions to the County Executive's Recom-
mended Budget. After all the budget changes have been
agreed upon, a public hearing on the Board of Supervisors
Proposed Budget and the tax rate is tentatively scheduled
for April 6. The Board adopts the budget on April 14.
Proposed Budget Highlights
At their final worksession on Thursday, March 24th, the Board of Supervisors approved a total County budget of
$103,366,271 for Fiscal Year 1994-95. This budget will be presented to the community at a Public Hearing on
Wednesday, April 6 at 7:00 p.m., at which time the Board will receive comments from the public on both the school
division and the general government budgets. If no further changes are made after the public hearing, the budget
will be officially approved by the Board of Supervisors on April 14. The proposed budget retains the current rates
of$0.72 for real estate and $4.28 for personal property taxes. No increases in taxes are proposed.
The County's total $103 million budget consists of approximately $24.7 million for general government operations,
$72.8 million for the school division, which includes $6.8 million in debt service for school facilities, $4.5 million
for the County's revenue sharing agreement with the City of Charlottesville, and $1.36 million for the Capital
Improvement Program. Allocations to specific functions in general government and major sources of revenue are
shown on pie charts on the following pages.
The proposed budget provides an additional $700,000 to the school division and $337,820 to general government
from the Board's original reserve fund. In addition to a 2.5% scale adjustment for all County employees and a 5%
increase in the employer's contribution to health insurance in both the school division and general government, the
proposed budget funds the following major items:
For General Government:
. Additional support and materials to the Fire/Rescue Division
. Additional funding to the Health Department, the Regional Library, the Discovery Museum, and the
Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT)
. Two additional Police Officers and a Record Clerk in the Police Department
. One Support Analyst in Information Services
. Continued funding for a half-time Recycling Coordinator position
. Continued funding for the General Relief and the Adult Care Home Services programs in Social Services
. Funding for a new Family Self-Sufficiency Program in Housing
For the School Division:
. Retains current instructional staffing ratios
. Funds 19.6 new regular teachers and 3 special education teachers as needed for pupil growth
. Partially funds the Curriculum Revision
. Funds new textbook adoption
. Provides approximately $600,000 in additional costs for Sutherland Middle School and Redistricting
including 2 additional assistant principals, 9 bus drivers, and 5 custodial positions.
. Funds Instructional Technology (3 FTE positions)
Revenues
FY94-95 Proposed Revenues
State Revenue -
General Fund
5%
State Revenue -
School Fund
22%
Carry-Over
2%
Federal Revenue
<1%
Self-Sustaining Funds
5%
Other Local Revenue
20%
Property Taxes
46%
P~oposed Revenues for FY94-95
FY 93-94 FY94-95 FY94-95 DOLLAR PERCENT
BUDGET ESTIMATE PROPOSED CHANGE CHANGE
Local Revenue
Property Taxes 45,739,340 47,706,900 47,706,900 1,967,560 4.30%
exherLocalRevenues 18,449,645 20,010,950 20,072,110 1,622,465 8.79%
exher Local - School Fund 448.311 448.311 448.311 Q ~
Total Local Revenue 64,637,296 68,166,161 68,227,321 3,590,025 5.55%
State Revenue
General Fund 4,844,870 5,236,064 5,286,844 441,974 9.12%
School Fund 20.888.577 22.060.018 22.238.752 1.350.175 ~
Total State Revenue 25,733,447 27,296,082 27,525,596 1,792,149 6.96%
Federal Revenue
General Fund 201,430 213,500 213,500 12,070 5.99%
School Fund 483.314 547.404 547.404 ~ ~
Total Federal Revenues 684,744 760,904 760,904 76,160 11.12%
Self-Sustaining Funds 5,337,798 5,113,115 5,245,000 (92,798) -1.74%
Carry-Over Balance
General Fund 167,047 0 400,000 232,953 139.45%
School Fund 150,000 0 682,450 532,450 354.97%
Fund Balance Q 378.998 525.000 525.000 100.00%
Total Carry-Over Balance 317,047 378,998 1,607,450 1,290,403 407.01%
T atal Revenue 96,710,332 101,715,260 103,366,271 6,655,939 6.88%
Expenditures
FY94-95 Proposed Expenditures
School Fund
64%
De bt Se rv Ice - 7"10
Capital Program - 1%
Revenue Sharing - 4%
Judicial - 1%
Public Safety. 7%
Public Works . 2%
Human Development-S%
Parks/Ree/Culture - 3%
Comronlty Development
2%
Proposed Expenditures for FY94-95
Budget Recommended Proposed Dollar Percent
FY93-94 FY 94-95 FY 94-95 Change Change
General Government
Administrative 4,135,892 4,251,357 4,292,536 156,644 3.79%
Judicial 1,334,627 1,436,322 1,439,322 104,695 7.84%
Public Safety 7,035,631 7,402,001 7,560,671 525,040 7.46%
Public Works 1,797,223 1,951,543 1,967,208 169,985 9.46%
Human Development 4,493,064 4,627,053 4,680,823 187,759 4.18%
Community College 7,310 7,310 7,310 0 0.00%
Parks/Rec reation/C u Itu re 2,596,853 2,652,278 2,680,923 84,070 3.24%
Community Development 1.849.164 1.957.605 2.012.826 163.662 ~
Total General Govt 23,249,764 24,285,469 24,641,619 1,391,855 5.99%
School Division
School Fund Operations 56,648,142 59,539,676 60,721,862 4,073,720 7.19%
Self-Sustaining Funds 5,337,798 5,113,115 5,245,000 (92,798) -1.74%
Debt Service 5.667.631 6.420.880 6.845.880 1.178.249 20.79%
Total Schools 67,653,571 71,073,671 72,812,742 5,159,171 7.63%
Capital Program 1,360,000 1,360,000 1,360,000 0 0.00%
City Revenue Sharing 4,319,236 4,475,120 . 4,475,120 155,884 3.61%
Refunds 66.800 51.000 51.000 (15.800) -23.65%
Total 96,649,371 101,245,260 103,340,481 6,691,110 6.92%
Board Reserve Funds 60.961 470.000 25.790 (35.171 ) -57.69%
Grand Total 96,710,332 101,715,260 103,366,271 6,655,939 6.88%
General Fund Expenditures
ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED RECOMM PROPOSED DOLLAR %
1992-93 1993-94 1993-94 FY 94-95 FY 94-95 INC INC
GENERAL GOVT ADMIN.
Board of Supervisors 282,190 277,494 277 ,494 284,861 284,861 7,367 2.65%
County Executive 377,698 391,273 391,273 399,442 399,442 8,169 2.09%
Data Processing 1,053,626 1,032,803 1,032,803 1,072,787 1,112,702 79,899 7.74%
Elections 131,444 126,414 129,714 128,705 128,705 2,291 1.81%
Finance 1,779,949 1,852,306 1,867,306 1,952,999 1,952,999 100,693 5.44%
Legal Services 188,479 269,302 269,302 214,638 215,902 (53,400) -19.83%
Personnel 178.871 186.300 186.300 197.925 197.925 1U25 ~
TOTAL GENERAL ADMIN. 3,992,257 4,135,892 4,154,192 4,251,357 4,292,536 156,&44 3.79%
JUDICIAL
Circuit Court 55,459 64,999 64,999 67,096 67,096 2,097 3.23%
Clerk Circuit Court 405,111 421,509 421,509 438,566 438,566 17,057 4.05%
Corrmonwealth Attorney 289,230 293,288 297,988 303,813 303,813 10,525 3.59%
General District Court 9,271 10,440 12,940 10,440 10,440 0 0.00%
Juvenile Court 43,395 34,050 34,050 38,035 38,035 3,985 11.70%
Magistrate 2,771 2,820 2,820 11,100 11,100 8,280 293.62%
Sheriff 496.631 507.521 514.521 567.272 570.272 62.ID 12..3Q%
TOTAL JUDICIAL 1,301,868 1,334,627 1,348,827 1,436,322 1,439,322 104,695 7.84%
PUBLIC SAFETY
Corrmunity Attention 63,705 53,000 53,000 54,060 59,060 6,060 11.43%
Fire Department - City 554,260 570,890 570,890 586,305 586,305 15:415 2.70%
Fire Department -JCFRA 391,953 418,577 418,890 426,125 426,125 7,548 1.80%
Fire/Rescue Administration 104,229 214,281 223,781 238,825 245,865 31,584 14.74%
Forest Fire Extinction 13,758 13,595 13,758 13,800 13,800 205 1.51%
Inspections 597,098 583,433 583,433 608,369 608,369 24,936 4.27%
Joint Dispatch Center 413,435 420,990 421,970 420,170 425,130 4,140 0.98%
Joint Security Complex 136,601 163,105 163,105 163,105 163,105 0 0.00%
Juvenile Detention 57,826 60,060 60,060 66,000 66,000 5,940 9.89%
Offender Aid and Restoration 34,070 35,090 35,090 35,790 36,670 1,580 4.50%
OAR (flow-thru grant) 130,338 136,900 267,238 136,900 136,900 0 0.00%
Police Department 3,990,173 4,210,910 4,273,060 4,474,997 4,615,787 404,877 9.61%
Rescue Squads - JCFRA 134,647 141,300 141,300 161,595 161,595 20,295 14.36%
SPCA a.a25 1MOO 1MOO 15..OOQ 15..OOQ 2&Q .1a.22%.
TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 6,631,918 7,035,631 7,239,075 7,402,001 7,560,671 525,040 7.46%
PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering 603,927 632,875 646,250 734,066 734,066 101,191 15.99%
Refuse Disposal 109,077 260,880 568,499 276,500 292,165 31,285 11.99%
Water Resources Management 30,870 45,150 45,150 47,625 47,625 2,475 5.48%
Staff Services 870,414 851,818 915,718 893,352 893,352 41,534 4.88%
CAC3 Grant MOO MOO 0 0 !6...5OQ) -100.00%
TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS 1,614,288 1,797,223 2,182,117 1,951,543 1,967,208 169,985 9.46%
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
AIDS Support Group 5,000 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Central VA Child Development Ass 7,560 9,000 9,000 9,180 9,180 180 2.00%
Ch'villelAlbemarle Legal Aid 12,640 12,775 12,775 13,030 13,030 255 2.00%
Charlottesville Free Clinic 0 4,600 4,600 4,600 4,600 0 0.00%
Children and Youth Commission 16,515 21,805 21,805 22,250 22,250 445 2.04%
District Home 38,904 33,000 39,061 37,500 37,500 4,500 13.64%
Family Services 5,100 0 1,500 0 0 0 0.00%
Focus - Teensight 19,228 19,230 19,230 19,615 19,615 385 2.00%
Health Department 510,880 542,000 542,000 552,840 584,000 42,000 7.75%
Jefferson Area Board for the Aging 94,310 127,480 127,480 130,030 130,030 2,550 2.00%
Jefferson Area United Transportati 150,775 230,335 230;335 235,000 242,435 12,100 5.25%
General Fund Expenditures
ACTUAL ADOPTED REVISED RECOI\IN PROPOSED DOLLAR %
1992-93 1993-94 1993-94 FY 94-95 FY 94-95 INC INC
Madison House 3,900 4,040 4,040 4,120 4,120 80 1.98%
Mental Health - Region Ten 201,180 211,240 211,240 241,555 241,555 30,315 14.35%
Outreach Counseling 22,075 25,580 25,580 0 0 (25,580) -100.00%
Sexual Assault Resource Agency 25,000 19,210 19,210 19,595 19,595 385 2.00%
Shelter for Help in Emergency 50,945 53,400 53,400 54,470 54,470 1,070 2.00%
Social Senlices 2,805,886 3,148,169 3,198,419 3,283,268 3,298,443 150,274 4.n%
United Way Scholarship Program ~ ll2QQ .3.1..2QO Q Q (31.200) ~
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SUB-TOT 3,993,348 4,493,064 4,55G,875 4,627,053 4,680,823 187,759 4.18%
EDUCATION
Piedmont Va. COrm1.lnity College Ulll Ulll Ulll Ulll U1.Q Q Q.OO%
TOTAL EDUCATION 7,310 7,310 7,310 7,310 7,310 0 0.00%
PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE
Cable 7,000 0
Library 1,480,774 1,442,120 1,442,120 1,470,965 1,487,195 45,075 3.13%
Literacy Volunteers 9,570 9,860 9,860 10,060 10,060 200 2.03%
Paramount 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Parks & Recreation 812,872 905,418 905,418 922,343 922,343 16,925 1.87%
Piedmont Council of the Arts 7,000 7,210 7,325 7,585 7,585 375 5.20%
Darden Towe Memorial Park 78,478 100,272 100,272 96,795 96,795 (3,4n) -3.47%
Teen Center 251 19,328 37,302 40,475 40,475 21,147 109.41%
Virginia Discovery Museum 21,000 21,000 21,115 7,585 20,000 (1,000) -4.76%
Visitors Bureau 75,278 91,645 91,645 96,470 96,470 4,825 5.26%
WVPT Public Television Q Q Q Q ~
TOTAL PARKS/REC/CUL TURE 2,492,223 2,596,853 2,615,057 2,652,278 2,680,923 84,070 3.24%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Albemarle Housing Ill1lrovement 298,565 346,455 346,455 353,385 353,385 6,930 2.00%
Bus Senlice/Route 29N 29,500 31,565 31,565 34,800 34,800 3,235 10.25%
Chamber of Corrmerce 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Gypsy Moth Program 20,700 21,400 21,400 21,400 24,121 2,721 12.71%
Ho~sing and Redevelopment 157,976 176,571 176,571 181,056 231,056 54,485 30.86%
Housing Coordinator 0 36,105 36,105 45,271 45,271 9,166 25.39%
Monticello Corrmmity Action Agen 40,283 41 ,490 41 ,490 42,320 42,320 830 2.00%
Planning 645,213 703,840 744,800 733,916 733,916 30,076 4.27%
SoiVWater Conservation 26,668 27,338 27,338 28,604 28,604 1,266 4.63%
VPI Extension Senlice 62,654 82,548 82,548 107,726 107,726 25,178 30.50%
Zoning 313,238 334,122 343,522 360,532 363,032 28,910 8.65%
Thomas Jeff. Planning District Co ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Ufl&
TOTAL COI\II\IIUNITY DEVELOP. 1,641,937 1,849,164 1,899,524 1,957,605 2,012,826 163,662 8.85%
TOTAL GENERAL OPERATIONS 21,675,149 23,249,764 23,996,977 24,285,469 24,641,619 1,391,855 5.99%
NON-DEPARTMENTAL
Debt Senlice 5,228,966 5,242,881 5,242,881 6,420,880 6,845,880 1,602,999 30.57%
Debt Senlice 1993 Bonds 0 424,750 424,750 0 0 (424,750) -100.00%
County/City Revenue Sharing 3,426,001 4,319,236 4,319,236 4,475,120 4,475,120 155,884 3.61%
Refunds 48,709 66,800 66,800 51,000 51,000 (15,800) -23.65%
Capitallll1lrovements 1,265,315 1,360,000 1,439,600 1,360,000 1,360,000 .0 0.00%
Contingency Reserve Q 6Q.OO1 .59..961 470 000 2S.I9Q (35.171) -57.69%
TOTAL NON-DEPARTMENTAL 9,968,991 11,474,628 11,553,228 12,777,000 12,757,790 1,283,162 11.18%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND EXPEND. 31,644,140 34,724,392 35,550,205 37,062,469 37,399,409 2,675,017 7.70%
TRANSFER TO SCHOOL OPERAT. 32,715,500 34,677,940 34,677,940 36,104,945 36,804,945 2,127,005 6.13%
ITOTAL OPERATING BUDGET 64,359,640 69,402,332 70,228,145 73,167,414 74,204,354 4,802,022 6.92%1
Constant Dollar Charts
General Government Operations
25,000,000 -----.., ...~--_._._---_.--_._.._-----
23,000,000 D Cost of Inflation
21,000,000 [J Cost of Growth
19,000,000 . Cost of Services
------_.-
r! 17,000,000
..!!!
'0 15,000,000
c
13,000,000 --
11,000,000
Cost of Inflation
9,000,000
Cost of Growth
7,000,000
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
Year
Total School Budget Expenditures
62,000,000 D Cost of Inflation
57,000,000 D Cost of Enrollment Growth
52,000,000 . Cost of Education
.. 47,000,000
~
0
... 42,000,000
..!!!
'0
C
37,000,000
32,000,000
27,000,000
22,000,000
1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1m 1~ 1~ 1~ 1~ 1m 1m 1~ 1~
Cost of Inflation
Year
-
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FY94-95 WORKING BUDGET
Beginning Reserve Fund
$1,670,000
County Executive Adjustments
less Gypsy Moth/County Attorney budget adjustments (3,985)
less EOC budget adjustment (4,960)
less increased cost patrol cars (1 k) (20,000)
Irotal County Executive Adjustments (28,945)
Total Reserve Fund $1 ,641 ,055
J30ard of Supervisors- Funded Initiatives Cost Funded
Infor Services Technical Support Analyst 39,915 39,915
Registrar Furniture and equipment 1,200 0
Salary supplement @ 5% 1815 1815
Gen District Ct. Additional books 1,500 0
Circuit Ct.Clerk Salary supplement @ 5%. 111 85 111 85
Commonwealth Att Salary supplement @5% · 8,800 8,800
Sheriff's Office 5% salary upgrade for deputies. 18,175 18,175
Part-time bailiff/Juvenile Ct 24,915 0
Two Dare Officers (benefits/operations) 50,795 0
Fugitive Squad 216,225 216,225
Police Record Clerk 18,030 18,030
5 Patrol Officers @ $52,820 each 261,400 1 58,460
Part-time Property Clerk to full-time 8,010 0
Part-time Secretary to full-time 9,290 0
Explorer Post program 5,000 5,000
Fire/Rescue Fire Safety Educator 6,280 6,280
Training materials/equipment 3,900 3,900
Additional funding fire/rescue squads 84,030 0
Recycling Recycling Coordinator - part-time 13,105 13,105
Staff Services Computerized fuel/vehicle maint system 12,000 12,000
Social Services Microcomputers (3) 6,000 6,000
Increased case load for adult homes 2,100 2,100
Restoration of funding General Relief P 1 4, 1 50 14,150
Health Dept Full funding 52160
JABA Home Safety Program - 30 persons 5,000 0
Esmont Senior"Ctr - one additional day 5,710 0
Carver Rec Nutrition Center 4,000 0
JAUNT Increased ridership 8,355 0
Two additional dispatchers 7,150 0
Part-time RideShare assistladmin asst. 3,575 0
Additional ride-share expenses 1,785 0
Comm Att Teens Give Program 5,000 0
Parks/Rec Median strip mowing 4,400 0
Elimination of rec. fees youths/ city resi 50,000 0
Piedmont Coun Assistant Director/Exp outreach and de 3,665 0
IWVPT $.10 per capital contribution 6,805 0
Paramount Phase I of lobby restoration 41 ,900 0
Planning
Aerial photography and mapping
Microcomputers
PC's (6) with housing software
Family Self-Sufficiency Program (FSS)
Code compliance equipment and trainin
.25 additional legislative Liaison
Mapping resource center
Forest Pest Technician
Business Retention Program
Housing
Zoning
T J PDC
Gypsy Moth
Chamber
otal BOS Changes - General Government
otal Reserve Fund
OS Changes - School Division
25,000
12,000
21,000
38,000
4,200
2,690
10,390
15,000
5,600
1,151,205
does not include supplement for constitutional officer, only staff, deputies, etc.
o
o
21,000
38,000
4,200
o
o
o
Q
$598,340
$1,042,715
ROLLIN M. STANTON
Route, 1, Box 172
Afton, Virginia 22920
(703) 456-6119
8 April, 1994
Board of Supervisors
Albemarle County
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Attached you will find the text of my presentation from the public hearing. I hope that
this will assist you in your efforts to investigate and resolve this set of issues prior to your
consideration of the final budget.
Thank you for your attention.
Regards,
c:il4~
Rollin M. Stanton III
I have watched the school budget revision process with dismay
and not a little fear.
The approach which was taken is analogous to sending your child
to the store with $1.50 to buy a quart of milk for you, and a candy
bar for themselves. On the way they are accosted by the
neighborhood bully and are relieved of a 50 cent tribute. When
they return home they are munching on a candy bar and no quart
of milk, and they blame it on the neighborhood bully for not
having enough money to purchase the milk.
For a number of reasons the resulting proposal meets few if any of
the objections to the original, outside of resolving the $1 million
elTor.
First, many of the major items which have been removed from the
budget, have merely been shifted into future years and not really
eliminated.
Item: School bus replacement - 3 busses $121,500
We are now 22 busses behind in replacement. This will
catch us soon, and maybe in a way which none of us really
want - accidentally.
Item: VRS Early retirement incentive - 20 year pay schedule
(f-412) $122,459 reduction
This shift from 10 to 20 years will cost the taxpayers $1.4
million over the next 20 years. What makes this even more
gauling is the fact that this payment schedule is based on an
8% interest rate. Negotiating a better rate could go farther
in addressing budget reductions than this expensive path
which has been chosen.
Second, the seeming changing of ground rules without any
apparent basis.
Item : Pupil transportation 7 busses, 7 radios $333,620 (f-
510)
"purchased with 1993-94 funds - bond rebate"
I have made a very careful search of the 93-94 budget -
revised, reapportioned, etc and am unable to see where this
expenditure is funded during this period. I find it hard to
believe that a sum of this magnitude can be so cavalierly
expended without some justification or allocation by the
keeper of the funds- you the Board of Supervisors. And if
you did make such an allocation, where is it in the 93-94
budget, or will this be a "ghost entry".
Item: Improvement of Instruction. Supplies $400,000 (fl06)
$210,000 of this shifted to 2555 . school based allocation and
the rest $190,000 lost in oblivion. Now I know that the
$190,000 was not part of the $1 million mistake, I have an
interim budget proposal after that correction which still
contains the full amount. So what has changed????
Third, obvious inaccuracies in numbers which still have not been
corrected.
Item: Pupil transportation. Fuel and Lubricants (f-508)
Existing fleet has a budget for $250,000. New buses and
growth buses(9) has a budget of $49,482. Unless these new
buses are much more expensive to fuel and lubricate or the
remaining bus fleet consists of only 45 buses, there is an
error somewhere.
Fourth, many of the budget items are developed based on an
enrollment formula. In spite of the fact that last years budget
basis and expenditures were based on only a slightly lower
enrollment forecast(10793 vs 10867), the large increases in a
number of categories are justified using actual enrollment Sept 93
vs forecast enrollment Sept 94.
Item: 22 new teachers - 19 regular, 3 special ed $800,000
22 teachers for a 74 student increase sounds just a little out
of line. With changes in mix between elementary, middle
. ,
and high schools some of this increase may be justifiable,
however, I question the reality of the number.
Fifth, the incomplete explanations provided in the narratives.
Item: No personnel related costs are reflected in the
narratives. Since these numbers make up 60-70% of the
total budget number, some level of justification is necessary.
This is an area which seems to always increase and never be
affected by reduction in numbers of student. Since these are
closely tied, narrative justification is not only logical but also
demanded.
All right, lets get to the bottom line. The sum of all of these things
I have pointed out is that there are systemic problems in evidence
in the budget process which have prevented and continue to
prevent a justifiable budget to be produced. After having spent
an additional untold number of hours looking at an analyzing the
budget data I am convinced that if funds are allocated to meet the
$61 million requested, then there will be a waste of at least 1%
possibly as much as 3% of the funds.
It is unfortunate that there was not time to do the job right to
begin with, but the time has been found to redo it several times.
To put it bluntly, the school board has been peeing in their shoes
to keep our feet warm. Systemic changes are needed, now!!!!!
Our schools are, and need to be run, like a business. We have
objectives, we have resources and we must use them effectively to
give our children the best opportunity to succeed. It is impossible
to give to every child every single opportunity which they may
want, and thus maximizing the benefits to the student population
as a whole needs to be the goal.
In the planning process prior years, the current year and new
requirements must be utilized to not only develop the next years
needs, but also a 5 year preliminary budget. Failure to plan on
this basis results in many items being shifted into the future, lost
in the shuffie and even delayed to the point that they become
financially impossible to deliver.
. ,
As a business we need to look at legislation which affect us. Not
simply from an administrative viewpoint but also from a financial
and operational standpoint. Once something becomes law, two
things occur. First, there will be at least a dozen interpretations
of what is required, and usually the broadest set of services are
implemented to avoid any litigation. Second, modifYing the new
law will take forever, and the end result will most likely be worse
than the original. The focus then must be on affecting the
legislative process ahead of it becoming a force of law.
Ten years ago the school budget was less than 1/3 of the current
budget, yet we planned and managed it the same way then as we
do today. Surely a $70 million budget(including capital outlays)
deserves more focused attention, and a business manager to
insure both accuracy in its development and effectiveness in its
execution.
As has been pointed out by a number of people the budget
structure, process, basis and management needs to be
standardized. The positions of Superintendent, County Executive
and Finance Director do not carry in them the mix of skills
required to meet the county need. They rather are focused, as
they should be on education, development and state directed
issues, and revenue management, respectively, as they should be.
I do not expect that what I have said here will cause you to reject
the budget proposal as it now stands, but I do expect that you will
ask the questions I have raised, and take appropriate actions as
the year progresses as are mandated by the responses you receive.
I also expect to see proposals developed and submitted to the
public for review regarding the budget development and
management process.
The time for accepting outright the budget proposals as submitted
is over. Fully justified, zero-based, standard format budgets will
be the norm. The budget cycle and process must change starting
now.
.r. low
~ ~.'J
t,ecC.
L-! .. l(-, _ Q '....' '1\ I f'-:,,"
!. .,1 r '-' 1'.:\---
":p ,"c
~ 1.. -<)
John R. Carter
HC-I Box 49
Earlysville. Virginia 22936
While the county and school budgets will undoubtedly draw
both acclaim and ctiticism, I would like to suggest we turn
our attention to what it is that is causing our problems.
What we now have is an ever-growing county government and
school system submitting incredibly complex budgets crafted
by full-time experts. You are expected to accept or reject
them in your capacity as representatives of the people.
As competent and industrious as you may be, this is simply
not possible and it is time we do something to restore
some balance between part-time representatives and full-
time employees.
Let me repeat. This is not a question of anyone's competency
or motives. I am simply pointing out what is already obvious,
the system is stacked against you and thus it is imperative
to change that system to restore a measure of equality.
Toward thaT END, I suggest you establish a full-time inde-
pendent support staff to serve both you and the school board.
Its purpose would be to investigate and analyze proposed
budgets and give you an independent and un-biased sourse
of knowledge on which to base your decisions.
Let's look at a few examples of how it would work.
The School Board is asked to approve the purchase of 9 new
buses for growth and re-districting. An examination of this
request would have revealed that the transportation department
already has 34 more buses than it needs to meet the daily
requirements of all the schools. Could that spare number be
.r' ~ '...
2
reduced to eliminate purchasing any new buses? My answer,
based on 27 years of operating bus companies, would be
yes and right there you have a savings of $458,000.
An independent staff, faced with a $415,000 request for
curriculum revisionwould have asked what exactly is wrong
with what we have and how would a revised curriculum correct
it ?
We would have an answer as to why school budget revenues
are based on low enrollment estimates and expenditures
based on higher ones.
It would have raised questions as to the advisability of
committing the County to a third school retirement plan
and investigated its costs and coverage.
I hope just these few examples prove the value of having a
support staff answering only to you and the school board.
It wouldn't cost much and it would save millions.