Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-01-07
ACTIONS Board of Supervisors Meeting of January 7, 2004 January9,2004 AGENDA ITEM/ACTION Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the County Executive, Mr. Tucker. All BOS members present. Also present were Bob Tucker, Larry Davis, Wayne Cilimberg and Ella Carey. Election of Chairman. Elected Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., for Calendar Year 2004. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman. · Elected Dennis S. Rooker for Calendar Year 2004. 6. Presentation of Awards: GFOA Audit and Budget Awards. PRESENTATIONS made to the County staff from Shelley Carmichaei, representing GFOA. 7. Certificates of Appreciation. - PRESENTED to Tracey Hopper and Jared Loewenstein. Appointment of Clerk. REAPPOINTED Ella Carny as Clerk for Calendar Year 2004 and Georgina Smith as Senior Deputy Clerk for Calendar Year 2004. 9. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 2004. - SET as follows: first Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m,, second Wednesday of the month at 6:00 p.m., with meetings to be held in the County Office Building. 10. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments Requested by Citizens. SET as follows: June 9, September 8 and December 8, 2004 and March 16, 2005, 11. Rules of Procedure, Adoption of. · ADOPTED. 12. From the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. o Dan Abrahamse, a resident of Rocky Hollow ROad, asked that Rocky Hollow be considered for the Rural Rustic Roads Program. 13.2 FY 2004 Appropriation Requests. - APPROVED FY 2004 appropriations fY2004046, #2004047, ~2004048, #2004049, #2004050, #~2004052, #2004053, #2004054, #2004055 and ~2004056 totaling $356,151.14 to provide funds for various General Government and School ping.rams. 13.3 Resolution to accept mad(s) in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase lA, into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached resolution. ASSIGNMENT Clerk: Advertise in The Daily Pm~mss and post notice on door ofCou~house.. Cle.rk: Advertise in The Daily Pro~ressasrequiredby Se~ion 33.10.2ofthe Zoning Ordinance. Clerk: Forward copy to County Attorney. Attachment 1) Juan Wade: Communicate with Mr. Abrahamse about the process. Clerk: Forward signed appropriation forms to OMB and copy appropriate individuals. Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Steve Snell in Department of Engineering. (Attachment 2) -Page 1- 3.4 Resolution to accept roads in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase 3B, into the State Secondary System of Highways. ADOPTED the attached resolution. 13.5 Request from Pdvate citizen to pave Blenheim Road (Rt 795) between Rt 708 and Rt 713. · REQUESTED that VDoT not issue a permit to the applicant until the Board has an opportunity to discuss further, receive additional public comment and adopt a resolution. The Board SUGGESTED the residents meet with County staff and VDoT to discuss concerns, and that County staff and VDoT meet with the property owner. REQUESTED staff . . bring back a formal report in February. 14a Work Session: SixYear Secondary Road Plan for 2004-2010 and County's Pdority List for Road Improvements. · SET public hearing for February 11, 2004. Made following comments/changes to the current Priodty List: o Remove #2 (West Leigh'Drive) from the list; work completed o Remove #14 (679 Grassmere Road) from the list; work completed o Confirm that $7.2 million for #10 (601 Old Ivy Road) reflects new status which is lesser project than earlier proposal o Regarding #13 (Southern Parkway) Jim Bryan indicated that from his standpoint the project qualifies for Revenue Shadng Funds and Secondary Road Funds. Board requested that if that is the case, it be indicated in the Six Year Plan. Juan Wade indicated that he would meet with the homeowners in Mill Creek to discuss their concerns. o Reverse the current ranking of#10 (601 Old Ivy Road) and #11 (656 Georgetown Road) to move Georgetown Road to #10 and Old Ivy Road to #11. o Rename #7 (Meadow Creek Parkway- Route 631 to Route 29) to eliminate confusion with the Meadow Creek Parkway since the road does not match up with Meadow Creek. Staff to bring back a report on whether the County wants to continue this project on its' pdodty list. If the project is eliminated address how the County would deal with the transportation network in that area including Free State Road and other planned development roads. Staff to look at alternatives (impact) to the project that would satisfy the transportation needs. o Reverse the current ranking of #7 (Meadow Clerk: Forward signed resolution to Steve Snell in Department of Engineering. (Attachment 3) Mark Graham: Provide report for February 4. Along with VDoT, County staff schedule meeting with residents and property owner. Plannin.q and VDoT staff: Proceed as discussed. -Page 2- the Rivanna Distdct representative on the Planning Commission, with said terms to expire December 31, 2007. · ACCEPTED Doug Gilmore's resignation from the Histodc Preservation Committee. BOARD COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: APPOINTED David Wyant to the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee · REAPPOINTED Lindsay Dottier and APPOINTED Ken Boyd to the Audit Committee. · APPOINTED Sally Thomas and David Wyant to the Building Committee. · REAPPOINTED Sally Thomas and Dennis Rooker to the Charlottesville/Albemade/UVA Planning and Coordination Council Policy Committee. · APPOINTED David Wyant to the Consortium of Chief Local Elected Officials for the Workforce Investment Act. REAPPOINTED David Bowerman and APPOINTED Ken Boyd to the Darden Towe Memorial Park Committee. · REAPPOINTED Dennis Rooker to the Fiscal Impact Committee, with said term to expire July 8, 2006. · REAPPOINTED David Bowerman to the Hazardous Materials Local Emergency Planning Committee. · REAPPOINTED Sally Thomas to the High Growth Coalition. · REAPPOINTED Lindsay Dorderto the Histodc Preservation Committee. APPOINTED David Bowerman to the Jail Authority, with said term to expire December 31,2005. · REAPPOINTED Sally Thomas and Lindsay Dorrier to the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center Board. · REAPPOINTED Sally Thomas and Dennis Rooker to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Committee. · REAPPOINTED Sally Thomas and APPOINTED David Wyant to the Thomas Jefferson Planning Distdct Commission. 21. Sp~2003-07,5, Alan & Theresa ZicldAshlei,qh Preservation Tract B. APPROVED SP-2003-75, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the five Conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. SP-2003-074. Karin M. Gest Private School. APPROVED SP-2003-74, by a vote of 6:0, subject to the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 23. Work Session: CPA-2003-003. Affordable Housinq Policy · CONSENSUS to amend the language in Strategies and Recommendations under the strategy regarding specific targets for development of affordable units .... as follows: At a minimum, 15% of all Units Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. Clerk: Set out conditions of approval. Clerk: Advertise public hearing. -Page 4- (Attachment 4) (Attachment 4) developed under ... and Housing Committee or a comparable contribution should be made to achieve affordable housinq qoals of the County. · SET public hearing for February 4, 2004. 24. From the Board: Matters not Listed on the Agenda. Sally Thomas: Board members may be getting phone calls from some Darden students who are studying the structure of water and sewer authorities. 25. Adjourn for tour of Paramount Theater, · .The meeting was adjourned at 3:11 p.m. /ewc Attachment I - Rules of Procedure Attachment 2- Briarwood Subdivision, Phase lA, Resolution Attachment 3 - Briarwood Subdivision, Phase 3B, Resolution Attachment 4 - Conditions for Planning items -Page 5- RULES OF PROCEDURE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Attachment I Officers Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman wino, if present, shall preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which elected. In addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman shall be the head official for all the Board's official functions and for ceremonial purposes. He shall have a vote but no veto. (Virginia Code Sections 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423) 2. Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a Vice-Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall discharge the duties of the Chairman during his absence or disability. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422) Term Of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms. (Virginia Code Section 15.2~1422) Absence of Chairman and Vice. Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman are absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chairman. Clerk and Deputy Clerks The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall be those set forth in Virginia Code Section 15. 2-1539 and such additional duties set forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted from time to time. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Meetings Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected members of the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in January of each succeeding year, shall be known as the annual meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board shall establish the days, times, and places for regular meetings of the Board for that year. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or days as has been established at the annual meeting. The Board may subsequently establish different days, times, or places for such regular meetings by passing a resolution to that effect in accord with Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on the next regular business day without action of any kind by the Board. (virginia Code Section 15.2.1416) If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board members to attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the Board and to the press as promptly as possible. All headngs and other matters previously advertised shall bo -Page 6- conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement shall be required. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjoumed from day to day or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting, until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Special Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems necessary at such times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be adjoumed from time to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1417) A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by two or more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the Clerk of the Board and shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. UPon receipt of such call or request, the Clerk, after consultation with the Chairman, shall immediately notify each member of the Board, the County Executive, and the County Attorney. The notice shall be in writing and delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business. The notice shall state the time and place of the meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered. No matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless all members are present. The notice may be waived if all members are present at the special meeting or if all members sign a waiver for the notice. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1418) The Clerk shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such special meeting and the matters to be considered. D, Order of Business The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in consultation with the Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of the Board shall be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent meditation. The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the agenda shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, no more than three persons will be allowed to speak during the time set aside on the agenda for "For the Public: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda". Each person shall be permitted no more than five minutes to provide comments. Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the agenda for public hearing on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed written deferral request to the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the week prior to the scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted administratively by the Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next Board package and the deferral will be announced at the earliest possible Board meeting to alert the public of the deferral. Any request received later than the Wednesday deadline and any subsequent request for a deferral for the same application previously deferred will be granted only at the discretion of the Board by a majority vote. The deferral shall not be granted unless the Board determines that the reason for the deferral justifies the likely inconvenience to the public caused by the deferral. The staff will make every effort to alert the public when a deferral is granted. -Page 7- Quorum A majodty of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the Board. If dudng a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If pdor to adjournment the quorum is again established, the meeting shall continue. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1415) A majodty of the members Of the Board present at the time and place established for any regular or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such meeting from day to day or from time to time, but not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting. Vo§ng Procedures Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall be made by approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a motion properly made by a member and seconded by another member. Any motion that is not seconded shall nOt be further considered. The vote on the mOtion shall be by a voice vote. The Clerk shall record the name of each member voting and how he voted on the motion. If any member abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state, his abstention. The abstention will be announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon. (Article Vii, Section 7, Virginia Constitution) Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all elected members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or resolution (1)appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2)imposing taxes; or (3) authorizing the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1428) Public Heatings. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board requiring a public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board may, however, at its discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public hearing or consideration of such matter. The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for public hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, the applicant shall be permitted no more than ten minutes to present its application. Following the applicant's presentation, any member of the public shall be permitted no more than three minutes to present public comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any public hearing. Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more than five minutes for a rebuttal presentation. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly seconded, shall be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken on the odginal motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the original motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before the Board for its consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original motion is again before the Board for its consideration. Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member moving the "previous question". Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call for a vote on the motion of the previous question. If approved by a majority of those voting, the Chairman shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion under consideration. A motion of the previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall take precedence over any other matter. -Page 8- Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered if a motion. to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned meeting held on the same day at which the matter was decided. The motion to reconsider may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for discussion in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon. Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these exceptions shall only be subject to reconsideration as provided above) may be rescinded by a majority vote of all elected members of the Board. The motion to rescind may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to rescind, if approved, is to nullify the previous decision of the Board. Zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances may be rescinded or repealed only upon meeting all the legal requirements necessary for taking action on such matters as if it were a new matter before the Board for consideration. G. Amendment of Rules of Procedure These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majodty vote of the Board at the next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given. H. Suspension of Rules of Procedure These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the Board members present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before the Board. Provided, however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Board to act in violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia; the Constitution of Virginia, or any other applicable law. Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be govemed by Robert's Rules of Order. (Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5-74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77; 1-4-78; 1-3-79; 1-2-80; 1-7-81; 1-6-82; 1-5-83; 1-3-84; 1-2-85; 1-3-86; 1-7-87; 1-6-88; 1-4-89; 1-2-90; 1-2-91; 1-2-92; 1-6-93; 1-5-94; 1-4-95; 1-3-96; 1-2-97; 1-7-98; 1-6-99; 1-5-2000; 1-3-2001; 1-9-2002; 1-8-2003; 1-7-2004). -Page 9- Attachment 2 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of January 2004, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street(s) in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase lA, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 7, 2004, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on platS recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision. Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Atbemade Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the read(s) in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase lA, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 7, 2004, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The read(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Hummin.qbird Lane. (State Route 1594) from the intersection of Route 1593 (Sunset Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 08/07/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1556, pages 99-102, with a 50-foot right- of-way width, for a length of 0.06 mile. Sparrow Lane {State Route 1592) from the intersection of Route 1576 (Briarwood Drive) to the intersection of Route 1593 (Sunset Drive), as shown on plat recorded 12J07/1995 in the Office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1508, pages 123-125, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07 mile. 1) Sunset Drive (State Route, t593) from the intersection of Route 1592 (Span'ow Lane) to the intersection of Route 1594 (Hummingbird Lane), as shown on plat recorded 08/07/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1556, pages 99-102, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile. Total Mileage - 0.18 mile. -Page 10- Attachment 3 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of January 2004, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street(s) in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase 3B, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 7, 2004, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the read(s) in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase 3B, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 7, 2004, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street. Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right, of-way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Bluejay Way (State Route 1596) from the intersection of Route 1575 (Austin Ddve) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 06/27/1995 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1475, page 468, with a 40-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile, Total Mileage - 0.05 mile. -Page 11- Attachment 4 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SP-2003~75. Alan & Theresa Zick/Ashlei.qh preservation Tract B. Request to allow construction of bridge in floodplain in accord w/Sec 30.3.05.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 34, P 22V, contains 100 acs. Znd PA. Loc on Priddy Court, apprex 0.3 mis from intersec of Priddy Court & Ashleigh Way Rd. Rivanna Dist. 3. 4. 5. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after construction. Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within one (1) vertical foot; Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands; Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. The mitigation plan shall include an implementation schedule; Engineering Department approval of plans and computations verifying structural adequacy of the bridge and abutments; and Conditions 1 through 4 must be met within four (4) months of the approval date of this permit. SP-2003-074. Karin M. Gest Private School. Request to allow private school for classroom Driver training in accord w/Sec 20.4.2.1 of the Zoning Ord. TM 61Z, Sec 3, P 202B~ contains .245 acs. Znd PUD. Loc on Incarnation Dr, at intersec of Rt 1694 (Branchlands Blvd) & Rt 1427 (Hillsdale Dr). Rio Dist. 1. Maximum enrollment shall be ten (10) students; and Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM provided that occasional school-related events may occur outside of these hours. -Page 12- COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Members of the Board of Supe~,/~ ~/ Ella Washington-Carey, CMC, December 22, 2003 RE: Agenda for Annual (Organizational) Meeting of January 7, 2004 Agenda Item No. 8. The Code of Virginia, in Section 15.2-1538, states that 'q'he governing body of every locality in this Commonwealth shall appoint a qualified person, who shall not be a member of the governing body, to record the official actions of such governing body.' Ella W. Carey and Georgina K. Smith expresses a desire to be reappointed as Clerk and Senior Deputy Clerk, respectively. These po~rtions are reappointed annually. Agenda Item No. 9. Section 15.2-1416 of the Code states that "The days, times and places of regular meetings to be held during the ensuing months shall be established atthe first meeting which meeting may be referred to as the annual or organizational meeting; however, if the governing body subsequently prescribes arE.., day or time other than that initially established, as a meeting day, place or time, the governing body shall pass a resolution as to such future meeting day, place or time. The governing body shall cause a copyofsuch resolUtion to be posted on the door of the courthouse or the initial public meeting place and inserted in a newspaper having general circulation in the county or municipality at least seven days prior to the first such meeting at such other day, place or time...." Should the Board wish to continue with the schedule adopted last year for ils regular meetings, the Board needs to adopt a motion to set the meeting times, dates and places for Calendar Year 2004 as follows: first Wednesday of the month - 9:00 a.m., and the second Wednesday of the month - 6:00 p.m., with said meelings to be held in the County Office Building on Mclntire Road. Agenda Item No, lO. Section 33.10.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Supervisors shall consider zoning text amendment petitions by.property owners at specitied intervals of three months. The dates requested for these hearings for 2004 are June 9 and September 8 and November 10, 2004, and March 16, 2005. A motion is required to set these dates which are then advertised in the newspaper. Agenda Item No. ff. A copy of the Board's current Rules of Procedure is attached for review. Agenda Item No. 20. A copy of an updated appointmerlt~list":isrincluded with this agenda item. /ewc RULES OF PROCEDURE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Bo Co Officers Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman who, if present, shall preside at such meeting and at all other meetings dudng the year for which elected. In addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman shall be the head official for all the Board's official functions and for ceremonial purposes. He shall have a vote but no veto. (Virginia Code Sections 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423) Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a Vice-Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall discharge the duties of the Chairman during his absence or disability. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422) Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422) Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman are absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chairman. Clerk and Deputy Clerks The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks who shall serve .at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall be those set forth in Virginia Code Section 15. 2-1539 and such additional duties set forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted from time to time. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Meetings Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected members of the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in January of each succeeding year, shall be known as the annual meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board shall establish the days, times, and places for regular meetings of the Board for that year. (Virginia Code Section 15.2- 1416) = Regular Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or days as has been established at the annual meeting. The Board may subsequently establish different days, times, or places for such regular meetings by passing a resolution to that effect in accord with Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on the next regular business day without action of any kind by the Board. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board members to attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the Board and to the press as promptly as possible. Ali hearings and other matters previously advertised shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement shall be required. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjourned from day to day or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting, until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia Code Section t 5.2-1416) Specia/ Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems necessary at such times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be adjourned from time to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1417) A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by two or more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the Clerk of the Board and shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon receipt of such call or request, the Clerk, after consultation with the Chairman, shall immediately notify each member of the Board, the County Executive, and the County Attorney. The notice shall be in writing and delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business. The notice shall state the time and place of the meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered. No matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless all members are present. The notice may be waived if all members are present at the special meeting or if all members sign a waiver for the notice. (Virginia Code Section 15~2-1418) The Clerk shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such special meeting and the matters to be considered. D. Order of Business The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for ali meetings in consultation with the Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of the Board shall be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent meditation. The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the agenda shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, no more than three persons will be allowed to speak during the time set aside on the agenda for "Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public". Each person shall be permitted no more than five minutes to provide comments. Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the agenda for public hearing on the advertised date unless the applicant submits a signed written deferral request, to the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the week prior to the scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted administratively by the Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next Board package and the deferral will be announced at the earliest possible Board meeting to alert the public of the deferral. Any request received later than the Wednesday deadline and any subsequent request for a deferral for the same application previously deferred will be granted only at the discretion of the Board by a majority vote. The deferral shall not be granted unless the Board determines that the reason for the deferral justifies the likely inconvenience to the public caused by the deferral. The staff will make every effort to alert the public when a deferral is granted. E. Quorum A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the Board. if during a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If prior to adjournment the quorum is again established, the meeting shall continue. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1415) A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established for any regular or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such meeting from day to day or from time to time, but not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting. F. Voting Procedures Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall be made by approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a motion properly made by a member and seconded by another member. Any motion that is not seconded shall not be further considered. The vote on the motion shall be by a voice vote. The Clerk shall record the name of each member voting and how he voted on the motion. If any member abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his abstention. The abstention will be announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon. (Article VII, Section 7, Virginia Constitution) Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of all elected members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or resolution (1) appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2) imposing taxes; or (3)authorizing the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1428) Public Hearings. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board requiring a public hearing until the public hearing has been held. The Board may, however, at its discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public hearing or consideration of such matter. The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for public hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, the applicant shall be permitted no more than ten minutes to present its application. Following the applicant's presentation, any member of the public shall be permitted no more than three minutes to present public comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any public hearing. Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more than five minutes for a rebuttal presentation. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly seconded, shall' be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken on the original motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the original motion. If the motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before the Board for its consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original motion is again before the Board for its consideration. Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member moving the "previous question". Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call for a vote on the motion of the previous question. If approved by a majority of those voting, the Chairman shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion under consideration. A motion of the previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall take precedence over any other matter. Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered if a motion to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned meeting held on the same day at which the matter was decided. The motion to reconsider may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for discussion in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon. Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these exceptions shall only be subject to reconsideration as provided above) may be rescinded by a majority vote of all elected members of the Board. The motion to rescind may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to rescind, if approved, is to nullify the previous decision of the Board. Zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances may be rescinded or repealed only upon meeting all the legal requirements necessary for taking action on such matters as if it were a new matter before the Board for consideration. G. Amendment of Ru/es of Procedure These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given. H. Suspension of Ru/es of Procedure These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the Board members present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before the Board. Provided, however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Board to act in violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any other applicable law. Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. (Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5-74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77; 1,4-78; 1-3-79; 1-2-80; 1-7-81; 1-8-82; 1-5-83; 1-3-84; 1-2-85; 1-3-86; 1-7-87; 1-6-88; 1,4,89; 1-2-90; 1-2-91; 1-2-92; 1-6-93; 1-5-94; 1,4-95; 1-3-96; 1-2-97; 1-7-98; 1-699; 1-5-2000; 1- 3-2001; 1-9-2002; 1-8-2003; 1-7-2004). RULES OF PROCEDURE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS Ao Officers Chairman, The Board at its annual meeting shall elect a Chairman who, if present, shall preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the year for which elected. In addition to being presiding officer, the Chairman shall be the head official for all the Board's official functions and for ceremonial purposes. He shall have a vote but no veto. (Virginia Code Sections 15.2-1422 and 15.2-1423) Vice-Chairman. The Board at its annual meeting shall also elect a Vice-Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall discharge the duties of the Chairman dudng his absence or disability. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422) Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairman shall be elected for one-year terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1422) Absence of Chairman and Vice-Chairman. If the Chairman and Vice Chairman are absent from any meeting, a present member shall be chosen to act as Chairman. Clerk and Deputy Clerks The Board at its annual meeting shall designate a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board. The duties of the Clerk shall be those set forth in Virginia Code Section 15. 2-1539 and such additional duties set forth in resolutions of the Board as adopted from time to time. (Virginia Code SeCtion 15.2-1416) Meetings Annual Meeting. The first meeting in January held after the newly elected members of the Board shall have qualified, and the first meeting held in January of each succeeding year, shall be known as the annual meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board shall establish the days, times, and places for regular meetings of the Board for that year. (Virginia Code Section 15.2- 1416) Regu/ar Meetings. The Board shall meet in regular session on such day or days as has been established at the annual meeting: The Board may subsequently establish different days, times, or places for such regular meetings by passing a resolution to that effect in accord with Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416. If any day established as a regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, the meeting scheduled for that day shall be held on the next regular business day without action of any kind by the Board. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) If the Chairman (or Vice Chairman, if the Chairman is unable to act) finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board members to attend a regular meeting, such meeting shall be continued to the next regular meeting date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the Board and to the press as promptly as possible. Ail hearings and other matters previously advertised shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement shall be required. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Regular meetings, without further public notice, may be adjourned from day to day or from time to time or from place to place, not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting, until the business of the Board is complete. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1416) Special Meetings. The Board may hold special meetings as it deems necessary at such times and places as it deems convenient. A special meeting may be adjourned from time to time as the Board finds necessary and convenient. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1417) A special meeting shall be held when called by the Chairman or requested by two or more members of the Board. The call or request shall be made to the Clerk of the Board and shall specify the matters to be considered at the meeting. Upon receipt of such call or request, the Clerk, after consultation with the Chairman, shall immediately notify each member of the Board, the County Executive, and the County Attorney. The notice shall be in writing and delivered to the person or to his place of residence or business. The notice shall state the time and place of the meeting and shall specify the matters to be considered. No matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless all members are present. The notice may be waived if all members are present at the special meeting or if all members sign a waiver for the notice. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1418) The Clerk shall notify the general news media of the time and place of such special meeting and the matters to be considered. D. Order of Business The Clerk of the Board shall establish the agenda for all meetings in consultation with the Chairman. The first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of the Board shall be the Pledge of Allegiance and a moment for silent meditation. The procedures for receiving comment from the public for matters not on the agenda shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, no more than three persons will be allowed to speak during the time set aside on the agenda for "Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public". Each person shall be permitted no more than five minutes to provide comments. Zoning applications advertised for public hearing shall be on the agenda for public hearing on the advertised date unleSs the applicant submits a signed written deferral request to the Clerk of the Board no later than noon on Wednesday of the week prior to the scheduled public hearing. The first request for a deferral will be granted administratively by the Clerk. The Board will be notified of the deferral in the next Board package and the deferral will be announced at the earliest possible Board meeting to alert the public of the deferral. Any request received later than the Wednesday deadline and any subsequent request for a deferral for the same application previously deferred will be granted only at the discretion of the Board by a majority vote. The deferral shall not be granted unless the Board determines that the reason for the deferral justifies the likely inconvenience to the public caused by the deferral. The staff will make every effort to alert the public when a deferral is granted. E. Quorum A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for any meeting of the Board. if during a meeting less than a majority of the Board remains present, no action can be taken except to adjourn the meeting. If prior to adjournment the quorum is again established, the meeting shall continue. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1415) A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established for any regular or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such meeting from day to day or from time to time, but not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting. F. Voting Procedures Approval by Motion. Unless otherwise provided, decisions of the Board shall be made by approval of a majority of the members present and voting on a motion properly made by a member and seconded by another member. Any motion that is not seconded shall not be further considered. The vote onthe motion shall be by a voice vote. The Clerk shall record the name of each member .voting and how he voted on the motion. If any member abstains from voting on any motion, he shall state his abstention. The abstention will be announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. A tie vote shall defeat the motion voted upon. (Article VII, Section 7, Virginia Constitution) Special Voting Requirements. A recorded affirmative vote of a majority of ali elected members of the Board shall be required to approve an ordinance or resolution (1) appropriating money exceeding the sum of $500; (2) imposing taxes; or (3)authorizing the borrowing of money. (Virginia Code Section 15.2-1428) Public Headngs. The Board shall not decide any matter before the Board requiring a public headng until the public hearing has been held. The Board may, however, at its discretion, defer or continue the holding of a public hearing or consideration of such matter. The procedures for receiving comment from the applicant and the public for public hearings shall be at the discretion of the Board. Unless otherwise decided, the applicant shall be permitted no more than ten minutes to present its application. Following the applicant's presentation, any member of the public shall be permitted no more than three minutes to present public comment. Speakers are limited to one appearance at any public hearing, Following the public comments, the applicant shall be permitted no more than five minutes for a rebuttal presentation. Motion to Amend. A motion to amend a motion before the Board, properly seconded, shall be discussed and voted by the Board before any vote is taken on the original motion unless the motion to amend is accepted by both the members making and seconding the original motion, if the motion to amend is approved, the amended motion is then before the Board for its consideration. If the motion to amend is not approved, the original mOtion is again before the Board for its consideration. Previous Question. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member moving the "previous question". Upon a proper second, the Chairman shall call for a vote on the motion of the previous question. If approved by a majority of those voting, the Chairman shall immediately call for a vote on the original motion under consideration. A motion of the previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall take precedence over any other matter. Motion to Reconsider. Any decision made by the Board may be reconsidered if a motion to reconsider is made at the same meeting or an adjourned meeting held on the same day at which the matter was decided. The motion to reconsider may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to reconsider, if approved, shall be to place the matter for discussion in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon. Motion to Rescind. Any decision made by the Board, except for zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions, and ordinances, (these exceptions shall only be subject to reconsideration as provided above) may be rescinded by a majority vote of all elected members of the Board. The motion to rescind may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to rescind, if approved, is to nullify the previous decision of the Board. Zoning map amendments, special use permit decisions and ordinances may be rescinded or repealed only upon meeting all the legal requirements necessary for' taking action on such matters as if it were a new matter before the Board for consideration. G. Amendment of Rules of Procedure These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which notice of the motion to amend is given. H. Suspension of Ru/es of Procedure These Rules of Procedure may be suspended by the majority vote of the Board members present and voting. The motion to suspend a rule may be made by any member of the Board. Upon a proper second, the motion may be discussed and voted. The effect of the motion to suspend a rule, if approved, is to make that rule inapplicable to the matter before the Board. Provided, however, approval of a motion to suspend the rule shall not permit the Board to act in violation of a requirement mandated by the Code of Virginia, the Constitution of Virginia, or any other applicable law. Necessary rules of procedure not covered by these Rules of Procedures shall be governed by Robert's Rules of Order. (Adopted 2-15-73; Amended and/or Readopted 9-5-74, 9-18-75; 2-19-76; 1-3-77; 1-4-78; 1-3-79; 1.2-80; 1-7-81; 1-6-82; 1-5-83; 1-3-84; 1-2-85; 1-3-86; 1-7-87; 1-6-88; 1-4-89; 1-2-90; 1-2-91; 1-2-92; 1-6-93; 1-5-94; 1-4-95; 1-3-96; 1-2-97; 1-7-98; 1-6-99; 1-5-2000; 1-3-2001; 1-9-2002; 1-8-2003; 1-7-2004). COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUM MARY AGEN DA TITLE: Requested FY 2004 AppropriatiOns SU BJ ECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request approval of Appropriation #2004046, #2004047, #2004048, #2004049, #2004050, #2004052, #2004053, #2004054, #2004055, and #2004056, totaling $356,151.14, providing funds for various General Government and School Funds. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Breeden; Ms. White AGENDA DATE: January 7, 2004 ACTION: x CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: INFORMATION: ATrACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: Yes BACKGROUND: The Code of Virginia §15.2-2507 stipulates that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget. However, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget or the sum of $500,000, whichever is lesser, must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self- Sustaining, etc. The total of these requested additional FY 2004 appropriations is $356,151.14, which is below the threshold level for a budget amendment on its own. It is anticipated that a budget amendment will be proposed in February 2004, and these appropriations would be incorporated into it. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4.2 Fund County services in a fair, efficient manner and provide needed public facilities and infrastructure. DISCUSSION: This request involves the approval of ten (10) new FY 2004.appropriations as follows: · One (1) appropriation (#2004046) in the amount of $25,679.00 for a grant from Homeland Security and funding of an insurance deductible for the Emergency Communications Center; · Two (2) appropriations (#2004047 and #2004052), totaling $116,724.14, for various School programs and grants; · Six (6) appropriations (#2004048, #2004049, #2004053, #2004054, #2004055, and #2004056), totaling $165,125.00 recognizing federal and state grant awards to the Police Department; and · One (1) appropriation (#2004050) in the amount of $48,623.00 for grant funding from the Department of Medical Assistance Services to the Department of Social Services. A detailed description of these appropriations is provided on Attachment A. 22-12-03P01:2'1 RCVD AGENDA DATE: AG EN DA TITLE: Page 2 of 2 January 7, 2004 Requested FY 2004 Appropriations RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the FY 2004 Appropriations #2004046, #2004047, #2004048, #2004049, #2004050, #2004052, #2004053, #2004054, #2004055, and #2004056. 03.166 Appropriation 2004046 Attachment A $ 25,679.00 The Emergency Communications Center has been awarded a Homeland Security grant in the amount of $20,679.00 to update the Emergency Operations Plan, purchase equipment towards exercising the plan, and funding of costs associated with testing the plan. There is no local match. The Emergency Communications Center Management Board approved the transfer of $5,000.00 from the ECC Fund Balance to cover the cost of paying an insurance deductible incurred as a result of completed litigation. Appropriation #2004047 $ 89~024.'14 Woodbrook Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from Sarah and John Lloyd. This donation will be used by the School Community Group to fund activities for the students at Woodbrook Elementary School. Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior Club received donations in the amount of $1,750.00. Donna and Phiilip Pfeifer donated $1,000.00, Friends donated $500.00, and Mary Hotchkiss Leavell donated $250.00. These donations will be used to purchase weight room equipment for the new Weight/Wellness Room that is being constructed at the school. The 2002 General Assembly appropriated funds to support the Teacher Mentor Program for participating school divisions. Albemarle County Public Schools received $7,432.04 from the State for FY03/04. In addition, there is a local fund balance in the amount of $511.87 from FY02/03 and may be re-appropriated for FY03/04. Albemarle County Public Schools received a grant award in FY02/03 from the Virginia Department of Health's Center for Disease Control. The Bicycle Education Grant funds gave students an opportunity to increase school and community bike safety awareness and promote lifetime fitness with the purchase of bicycles and safety equipment. This grant has a local fund balance in the amount of $505.00 from FY02/03. It is requested that this fund balance be re-appropriated for FY03/04. Virginia Department of Education awarded the Reading Excellence Act Grant to Yancey Elementary School in FY01/02 and FY02/03. This grant has a local fund balance in the amount of $486.64 from FY01/02. It is requested that this fund balance be re-appropriated for FY03/04. The Partnership i n Character Education G rant was not fully expended i n F Y02/03. The grant carryover amount of $25,231.52 was retained by the State and may be appropriated for FY03/04. There is also a fund balance in the amount of $12,926.97. These funds will support the development, implementation, evaluation and dissemination of comprehensive K- 12 character education programs. In addition, Albemarle County Public Schools will act as fiscal agent for Special Projects Staff Development Character Education Grant carryover in the amount of $26,713.07 as defined by the Virginia Department of Education. Various Miscellaneous Grants have an unexpended fund balance totaling $12,967.03 from FY02/03. Holders of these grants have been encouraged to expend these small balances. It is requested the fund balance from these miscellaneous grants be re-appropriated for FY03/04. Appropriation #2004048 $ 49~675.00 The Department of Justice has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the amount of $49,675.00 in federal funding to assist in the development of our mobile data system. Specifically, this grant will purchase 10 mobile data computers (MDC's). The MDC's will increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and privacy of communications between the Emergency Communications Center and police officers. Their use will allow the officers to run their own vehicle license checks, driver's license checks, and State/NCIC wanted checks. Increased efficiency and effectiveness should improve public safety and the local quality of life. With more discretionary time along with more knowledge and information immediately available to the officer, he or she can answer questions, research problems, and/or plan a solution right then and there with the concerned citizen(s). There is no local match associated with this grant. Appropriation #2004049 $ 99~350.00 The Department of Justice has awarded the Albemarle County Police Department a grant in the amount of $99,350.00 in federal funding to purchase 20 in-car DVD cameras, designed for use by police officers. In-car camera systems will assist law enforcement in many vital areas. A few important areas the DVD cameras will be of use include: to record and track initial violation/reason for stop, record suspect behavior, document incident activity (e.g. DUI tests), increase the safety of the officers, increase likelihood of successful prosecution, and decrease frivolous com plaints. Another important note concerning DVD versus VHS is timesaving. A DVD can be duplicated in a matter of seconds, while a VHS is re-recorded in real time. Currently original VHS tapes must leave the ewdence storage area for court. The fact that an officer has the original allows for an argument of tape manipulation. In using a back-up DVD, all originals will remain in the evidence storage area. There is no local match associated with this grant. Appropriation #2004050 ,~ 48~623.00 As of November 2003, the County of Albemarle had a total of 2,625 children enrolled in the Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, and the Family Access to Medical Insurance Security (FAMIS) Program. Unfortunately it is not enough to enroll the child the first time. A high number of children drop off the programs each month even though many of them are still eligible. Too many families do not understand or do not take action to maintain their child's coverage in the appropriate timeframe. Instead, either the child unnecessarily goes without coverage, and perhaps medical care, and/or the family or agency staff must start all over to determine eligibility at a later date. This process is not good for the child and is administratively inefficient to our agency. The County of Albemarle Department of Social Services (DSS) applied for and received a grant, in the amount of $48,623.00, from the Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS) to develop and test innovative, cost- effective strategies to increase the retention of eligible children in FAMIS Plus (Medicaid Expansion and Medically Indigent Medicaid), to improve the transition of eligible children between FAMIS Plus and FAMIS, and to increase enrollment of eligible children in the appropriate program. The Department has agreed to carry out such as activities as (but not limited to): hiring a bilingual eligibility worker and/or secure language interpreter services dedicated to the project; building a relationsh ~p with enrolled families through phone calls, home visits and written communication; providing at least 3 contacts from project or agency staff between enrollment and re-enrollment; developing new and revised letters and brochures, among others. There is no local match. Appropriation #2004052 $ 277700.00 Western Albemarle High School and the Warrior Club received donations in the amount of $300.00. Ragged Mountain Running Shop donated $100.00, Mary Robinson donated $25.00, Mark and Cynthia Lorenzoni donated $50.00, Michael and Doreen Satterwhite donated $25.00, Kevin Kollar and Jean Quigley donated $75.00, and NancyTakahashi donated $25.00. These donations will be used to purchase weight room equipment for the new Weight/Wellness Room that is being constructed at the school. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $500.00 from R.T. Spurzem. This donation will be used to purchase miscellaneous supplies for classroom use. Cale Elementary School received anonymous donations in the amount of $450.00. These donations will be used to fund activities for the second graders at Cale Elementary School. The National Association for Gifted Children awarded Dr. Kevin Castner a $1,000.00 administrative award. Dr. Castner has donated this award money to the Albemarle County Schools Gifted Program for the purpose of supporting participation by students from under-represented populations in activities that increase access to academic programs. Albemarle County Public Schools received a donation in the amount of $1,000.00 from The Virginia School Boards Association. This donation is in support of the NRA lawsuit. The Points of Light Foundation has awarded Red Hill Elementary School $200.00 to support the Kids Care Club and their participation in the Habitat for Humanity Project. The Frederick S. Upton Foundation made a matching grant donation in the amount of $1,000.00 to Henley Middle School. This donation will support Henley's Cultural Enrichment Program in funding three artists-in-residences programs: Sculpture, Writer, and Dramatic Interpretation. The projects will involve interactive activities to include hands on learning experiences for students with performing, visual and musical arts. The Virginia Commission for the Arts awarded Murray Elementary School a Touring Assistance Grant in the amount of $250.00. This grant will help fund an assembly in which the presenter will teach and perform Indian Classical Dance. State Farm Insurance Company awarded Agnor Hurt Elementary School a grant in the amount of $23,000.00. This grant will fund the Mobile Classroom Project, The Do Drop In Bus. This is an Albemarle County School bus equipped as if it were a classroom. The goal of the program is to improve the academic performance of students through extending the time available to learn. Appropriation #2004053 $ 5,000.00 Albemarle County is a rapidly developing area. Part of this development is bicycle activity. Several hundred miles of the County is designated as "Share the Road" with bicyclists. There is a planned network of roads with bike lanes throughout the County. In addition to the actual accidents and injuries, the County is experiencing a growing number of complaints about motorists and bicyclists not abiding by the laws of the road. In an effort to increase public safety awareness and to increase coverage at large "non vehicle" friendly events, the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles has awarded Albemarle County a grant in the amount of $5,000.00 to purchase bicycles and uniforms for officers. There is no local match. Appropriation #2004054 $ 3T600.00 In 2002, Albemarle County had a record number of crashes. There were 37 very serious vehicle crashes resulting in a total of 22 fatalities. This number was a 144% increase over the 9 fatalities in 2001. Speeding was a primary cause in almost all of these accidents. In an effort to increase our efforts at combating this deadly speeding problem, the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles has approved a grant for Albemarle County in the amount of $5,000.00 to purchase two radar units. These radar units will be distributed to patrol shift officers so that they may have the most up-to-date equipment available for effectively measuring and prosecuting violators. There is no local match. Appropriation #2004055 $ 3~000.00 The busiest time for major shopping in the County occurs during the Thanksgiving to New Year's holiday season. December tends to have the highest frequency of traffic accidents, shopping thefts, partying, and socializing. DUI's are at their highest level during this season also. The Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles has awarded the Police Department a $3,000.00 grant to support hours of traffic safety overtime activities as part of the larger efforts of Operation Safe Holiday. There is no local match. Appropriation #2004056 $ 4T500.00 During 2002, the Albemarle County Accident Reconstruction team investigated over 37 very serious motor vehicle crashes. These crashes resulted in a total of 22 fatalities. This number was a 144% increase over the 9 fatalities in 2001. So far in 2003, we have investigated 5 serious crashes that have resulted in 3 fatalities. In many of these cases we were unable to determine what the speeds of the vehicles involved were because of lack of physical evidence at the scene. In an effort to remain current with available technology, DMV has granted the Police Department a grant in the amount of $4,500.00 to assist in the purchase of a Crash Data Recovery System. This laptop computer and software will enable the Police Department to tell a vehicle's speed prior to impact, driver braking activity, air bag deployment data, seatbelt use, and more. There is no local match. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AG ENDA TITLE: "Keep 'Em Covered" Grant - Retention Improvement and Enrollment in Children's Health Insurance Program SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approve the appropriation of a one-time demonstration grant of $48,623 to the County Of Albemarle Department of Social Services to develop and implement strategies to improve the retention and enrollment of eligible children in the state's health insurance program for children. STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, White, Ralston, McWhinney, BACKGROUND: AGENDA DATE: January 7, 2004 ACTION: IN FORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes ~ REVIEWED BY: ~~ /- The County Of Albemarle Department of Social Services (DSS) applied for a competitive demonstration grant from the Virginia DePartment of Medical Assistance Services (DMAS) in October 2003 to increase enrollment in and/or improve the retention of Albemarle County children in the state's health insurance program for children. The Department was awarded the grant in the amount of $48,623 of federal/state funds in November. As of November 2003, the County Of Albemarle has a total of 2,625 children enrolled in the Medicaid, Medicaid Expansion, and the Family Access to Medical Insurance Security (FAMIS) Program. Unfortunately, it is not enough to enroll the child the first time. A h~gh number of children drop off the programs each month even though many of them are still eligible. Too many families do not understand or do not take action to maintain their child' s coverage in the appropriate timeframe. Instead, either the child unnecessarily goes without coverage, and perhaps medical care, and/or the family and agency staff must start all over to determine eligibility at a later date. This process is not good for the child and is administratively inefficient for our agency. The department requests an appropriation of this grant award. STRATEGIC PLAN: This project aligns with the Board's Strategic Direction #3 - "Enhance the Quality of Life for All Citizens" through the provision of health insurance to children. Uninsured children often do not have access to needed medical care and results in a lesser quality of life for them, their families, and the community. DISCUSSION: The cycle for this grant is November 1, 2003 - October 31, 2004. The grant is being awarded by DMAS to the County Of Albemarle DSS to develop and test innovative, cost-effective strategies to increase the retention of eligible children in FAMIS Plus (Medicaid Expansion and Medically Indigent Medicaid), to improve the transition of eligible children between FAMIS Plus and FAMIS, and to increase enrollment of eligible children in the appropriate program. Specifically, the department has agreed to carry out such activities as, but is not limited to these activities: Seek to hire a bilingual eligibility worker and/or secure language interpreter services dedicated to the project; Build a relationsh p with enrolled families through phone calls, home visits and written communication; providing at least 3 contacts from project or agency staff between enrollment and re-enrollment; Develop new and revised letters and brochures; Provide for processing of applications; Work with eligibility staff and other agency staff (including child welfare and school based family support workers) to build ongoing relationships with enrolled families; > Work closely with the Thomas Jefferson United Way Outreach Project to insure transition from enrollment to retention services; AGENDA TITLE: "Keep 'Em Covered" Grant- Retention Improvement and Enrollment in Children's Health Insurance Program January 7, 2004 Page 2 Work with local health care providers through existing coalitions; Provide outreach to Southern Albemarle Health Clinic to encourage re-enrollment of FAMIS Plus children; and, Document and measure outcomes of activities. As this is a demonstration project, it is assumed by the grantor that some of the activities above may not achieve the desired outcome and, therefore, it is expected that other activities be developed that are more likely to succeed during the grant cycle. The project will be evaluated in several ways, to include, 6-month and final project reports and documentation of activities submitted to DMAS, consultation or site visits by the Child Health Insurance Outreach Manager or other DMAS staff, and retention and enrollment data as may be available. Specifically, the following outcomes will be documented and measured: Increase the retention rate among children enrolled in FAMIS Plus: o Number and percentage of newly enrolled FAMIS Plus children that are successfully retained at re- enrollment; o Number and percentage of currently enrolled FAMIS Plus children that are successfully retained at re- enrollment; o Number and percentage of FAMIS Plus children from primarily Spanish-speaking families that are successfully retained at re-enrollment. Increase the number of contacts from ACDSS to enrolled families prior to re-enrollment: o Enrolled families will receive at least three outreach contacts from project or agency staff between enrollment and re-enrollment; o ACDSS will collect information about issues in utilization of health insurance that may bear on re-enrollment. Increase information available to enrolled families through development of new or revised letters, brochures, etc., including versions in Spanish and other languages as needed, or public presentations: o Number and percentage of families indicating better understanding of FAMIS Plus benefits as the result of written material, including newly created or revised letters and brochures, in Spanish or other language versions as well as English; o Number and percentage of families indicating better understanding of FAMIS Plus benefits as the result of presentations at PTO meetings, family nights or other parent gatherings. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the appropriation. See Attached Budget - Appendix 1 03.164 Appendix 1 ACDSS Outreach/Retention Project Budget Item Grant $$ Explanation Personnel Salary $33,986 Eligibility worker minimum + 20% Benefits $10,322 FICA, Workers Comp, Medicare, retirement; life, health, dental insurance Office Supplies $140 Postage $115 Printer cartridges, paper, pens, copies, etc. Mileage $1,560 100 miles per week @ $.325/mile Equipment - specify $2,500 Other - specify Total $48,623 Hard drive, monitor, keyboard, printer, software, phone, adding machine FMS2 1q' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE .... NUMBER ~2~0'~t'0--46 ..................... , REVISED 6~84 APPROPRIATION FORM DATE - ' ~ATCH # ' E~pL~NATION: FUNDINGI FOR HOMELAND SECURII~ GR~NT ~R ECC TO UPDATE EMERGENCY !' OPERATIONS pLAN AND PAYMENT OF AN INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLE. ! SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ' ACcoUNT'DESCRIPTION cODE AMOUNT ' ' DEBIT CREDIT ' iIi 4100 31045 130000 PART TIME WAGES J 1 2,679.00 .. I 4100 31045 312500 PROF. SERVICES J I 2,000.00 i I 4100 31045600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES J I 2,000.00 i I4100 31045 600200 ~FOOD SUPPUES J I 1,000.00 i I 4t00 31045 800700 ADP EQUIPMENT J I 12,000.00 ! I 4100 31045 800712 SOF'rWARE UPGRADES J I 1,000.00 i 2 4100 24000 240427 HOMELAND SEC. GRANT J 2 20,679.00 ~ j ! I 4100 31041 312100 PROF. SERVICES J I $,000.00 2 4100 61000 610100 FUND BALANCE J 2 . $,000.00 I 4100 0501 EST REVENUE J 25,679.00 ! 4t00 0701 APPROPRIATION J 25,679.00 ; J L 61,358.00 2.6,679.00 26,679.00 !PREPARED BY: 1211510:! " iAPPROVED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN DATE:' ELLA W. CAREY DATE: IF/'12004 FMS2 I COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE. NUMBER 2004 047 REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION FORM DATE - BATCH # EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND GRANTS ' " SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 · 2212 61411 580500 Staff Development J 1 500.00 1 9000 60302 ' 800656 Weight/Wellness Room J I 1,750100 1 3151 61311 160300 Stipend-~Staff/Curric. J I 2,000.00 I 3151 61311 210000 FICA I J 1 153.00 I 3151 61311 312700 Prof. Srvcs. - Consultant J I 3,000.00 1 3151 6131~1 580500 Staff Developl J 1 1,500.00 I 3151 61311 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 1,290.91 1 3153 61311 800100 Machinery & Equipment J 1 505.00 1 3213 61101 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 486.64 1 3146 61101 131400 PTWages- Other Mgmt J 1 25,000.00 1 3146 61101 210000 FICA I J 1 1,912.50 1 3146 61101 242000 Group Life - PT J I 153.60 ~1 3146 61101 312700 Prof. Srvcs. - Consultant J I 8,000.00 1 3146 61101 . 580500 Staff Development J 1 23,713.07 1 3146 61101 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J I 6,092.39 1 3104 60201 312500 Prof. Srvcs..- InstruCtion J 1 500.00 1 3104 60201 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 332.22 ! 1 3104 . 60202 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 500.00 I 3104 60203 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 120.65 1 3104 60206 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 1,000.00 I 1 3104 60207 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 105.29 I 1 3104 60210 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 "1,810.00 I 3104 60211 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J I 563.65 1 3104 60212 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 1,633.22 1 3104 60213 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J I 240.05 1 3104 60215 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J I ' 2,606171 · 1' 3104 60216 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 275.39 11 '3104 ~60252 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J I 70.30 · ' 1 3104 60253 601300 EduC/Rec. Supplies J 1 820.87 1 3104 60255 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies J 1 44.02 I 3104 60301 601300 EducJRec. Supplies J 1 31.79 I 3104 60304 601300 Educ/Rec. Supplies . J 1 21.80 I 3104 613t.1 580500 Staff Development J 1 2,192.06 1 310'4 63331 800100 Machinery & Equipment J I 99.01 2 2000 18100 181109 Contributions J 2 500.00 2 9000 18100 181123 WAHS Wellness/Weight J 2 1,750.00 2 '3151 24000 240380 Teacher Mentor Program J 2 7~432.04 2 3151 51000 ' 510100 Approp. - Fund Balance J 2 . 511.87 2 3153 51000 510100 Approp. - Fund Balance J 2 505.00 2 3213 51000 510100 Approp..- Fund Balance J 2 486.64 2 3146 33000 330129 Partnership N Character J 2 25,231.52 2 3146 33000 330133 SPecial pr°Ject J 2 26,713.07 2 3146 51000 510100 Approp..- Fund Balance J 2 12,926.97 2 3104 51000 510100 Approp.- Fund Balance ' J 2 12,967.03 EXPLANATION: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP # 2004 048 DATE- BATCH# 2003 Department of Justice- COPS Technology Grant 2003-CK-VVX-0190 SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPEI FUND DEPT OBJECTI DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT, CREDIT 1 1517 31013 800100 Equipment J 1 49,675.00 2 1517 33000 300001 Federal Grant Rev J 2 49,675.00 1517 0501 Estimated Revenue J 49,675,00 ,' 0701 Approp. J 49,675.00 TOTAL '09,350.00 40,675.00 40,675.00 PREPARED BY: BD. OF SUPVAPPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: Melvin Breeden Ella W.-Carey DATE: 12115/2003 DATE: 1/7/2004 DATE: DATE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP # 2004 049 DATE BATCH# EXPLANATION: 2003 Department of Justice- COPS Technology Grant 2003-CK-WX-0191 SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER' TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1516 310-13 800100 Equipment J 1 99,350.00' 2 1516 33000 300001 Federal Grant Rev . J 2 99;350.00 1516 0501 Estimated Revenue J 99,350.00 0701 Approp. J 99,35.0.00 TOTAL 198,700.00 99,350.00 '99,350.00 PREPARED BY: BD. OFSUPVAPPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: MelvinBreeden DATE: El. laW. Carey DATE: DATE: DATE: 12/15/2003 117/2004 IFMS2 ~' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ........ NUMBER 2004 050 REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION FORM DATE BATCH fi EXPLANATION: FUNDING FOR SOCIAL SERVICES "KEEP 'EM COVERED" GRANT. SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER ITYPE .FUND DEPT OBJECT ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT I1 1565 53155 110000 SALARIES-REGULAR' J 1 33,986.00 I! 1565 53155 210000 FICA J I 21600.00 1565 53155 221000 VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYS. J I 2,932.00 1565 53155 231000 HEALTH INSURANCE J I 4,480.00 li 1565 53155 232000 DENTAL INSURANCE J I 160.00 · 1565 53155 270000 WORKER,S.COMPENSATION ' J 1 ~150.00 1565 53155 520100 POSTAL SERVICES J 1 115.00 !1 1565 53155 550100 TRAVEL-MILEAGE J 1' 1,560.00 il 1565 53155 600100 OFFICE SUPPLIES J 1 140.00 il 1565 53155 800100 MACHINERY& EQUIPMENT J 1 - ~2,500.00 ~=2 1565 24000 240615 DMASlFAMIS GRANT J 2 48,623.00 1565 0501 EST REVENUE J 48,623.00 1565 0701 APPROPRIATION J 48,623.00 · J · J J J J J J J j , j J j · J tOTAL . 97,246.00 48,6-~3.00 48,6_~$.00 iPREPARED BY: · MELVIN BREEDEN DATE: · . 12/15/03 __: ___iAPPROVED BY: ELLA W..CAREY · DATE: . 1/7/2004 . FMS2 t~ ~ COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE ~-~' '"'"'"" NUMBER · 2004 052 REVISED 6/84 APPROPRIATION FORM DATE BATCH# EXPLANATION: ' FUNDING FOR EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND GRANTS · SUB. LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT .ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 2215 61101 601300 EDUCATION/REC:SUPPLIES J ~' 500.00 1 9000 60302 800650 WEIGHT/WELLNESS EQUIP J 1 300.00 1 2114 61101 601300 EDUCATION/REc. sUpPLIES J'l 450.00 1 2111 . 61314 580000 MISC. SUPPLIES J 1 1,000.00 1 2410 62110 312100 PROFSERVICES- LEGAL· . J 1 1,000.00 1 3104 60207 601300 EDUCATION/I J 1 · 200.00 · 1 3104 60252 312500 PROFSERVlCES-INSTRUCT. J 1 1,000.00 1 3104 60216 '312500 PROFSERVlCES-INSTRUCT. J 1 250.00 I 3104- 60215 132100 pTWAGES-TEACHER J I 19,500.00 . 1 3104 60215 210000 FICA J 1 1,492.00 1 3104 '60215 601300 EDUCATION/REC. SUPPLIES J I 2,008.00 j 2 2000 18100 181109 CONTRIBUTIONS J 2 2,950.00 2 9000 18100 181123 WAHSWEIGHT/WELLNESS J 300.00 2 3104 18000 189900 MISC. REVENUE : J 200.00 2 3104 18000 181221 UPTON GRANT J 1,000.00 2 3104 24000 240266 TOUR GRANT-VL MURRAY J 250.00 2 3104 18000 181247 STATE FARM-AGNOR HURT J 23,000:00 J 2000 0501 EST. REVENUE J 2,950.00 0701 APPROPRIATION J . '2,950.00 r J · 9000 0501 EST. REVENUE J 300.00. 0701 APPROPRIATION J 300.00 J 3104 0501 EST. REVENUE -J 24~450.00 0701 APPROPRIATION J · ' 24,450.00 J · rOTAL - " 55,400.00 27,700.00 27~700.00' iPREPARED BY: MELVIN BREEDEN . DATE: 12/15/03 iAPPROVED BY: ~ ELLA W.'CAREY DATE: 1/7/2004 !ENYE~ED BY: _ .......... J ............. ~_~' ..................... DATE: · EXPLANATION: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP # 2004 053 DATE BATCH# .DMV- Increasing Bike Patrol Operations Grant PS04-09-50309 · I 'SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECTI DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT ' CREDIT ' 1 1529 '33310 800100 Mach & Equip J 1 3,600.00 2 1529 33310 601100 Uniforms J '1 1,400.00 2 1529 33310 330.3.08 DMVFod Rev J 2 5,000.00 1529 0501 Est Revenue J 5,000.00 0701 Appropriation J 5,000.00 TOTAL 10,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 PREPARED BY: BD. OFSUPVAPPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: 12/15/2003 .1/7/2004 EXPLANATION: C.OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION DMV - Additional Radar Units Grant PT04-00-50400 APP # 2004 054 DATE BATCH# · ~ SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT · CREDIT 1 1529 33310 800311 Radar Equip- New J 1 '3,600.00 2 1529 33310 33309 DMVFedRev J 2 3,600.00 1529 ' 0501 Est Revenue J 3,600.00 0701 Appropriation J 3,600.00 TOTAL 7,200.00 3,600.00 3,600.00~ PREPARED BY: BD. OF SUPVAPPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: Melvin Breeden Ella W. Carey DATE: 12/15/2003 DATE: 1/7/2004 DATE: DATE: EXPLANATION: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION Operation Safe Holiday Grant PT 04-01-50401 APP # 2004 055 DATE BATCH# SUB LEDGER GENE:PAL LEDGER TYPE FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1535 31013 120000 Overtime' J 1 2,786.81 1 1535 31013 210000 FICA J 1 213.19 2 1535 33000 330011 Fedl DMV Grant J 2 3,000.00 1535 0501' Est Revenue 3,000.00 · 1535 0701 APpropriation 3,000.00 TOTAL . 6,000.00 31000.00 3,000.00 PREPARED BY: Melvin Breeden DATE: BD. OF SUPVAPPROVAL: Ella W. Carey DATE: ACCT. APPROVAL: DATE: ENTERED BY: DATE: 12/15/2003 1/7/2004 EXPLANATION: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE APPROPRIATION APP # 2004 056 DATE .BATCH# DMV - Crash Data Recording System Grant TR04-02-50602 SUB LEDGER GENERAL LEDGER TYPE i FUND DEPT OBJECT DESCRIPTION CODE AMOUNT DEBIT CREDIT 1 1529 33310 800700 ' ADP EquiPment J 1 4,500.00 2 1529 33310 330307 Fed. DMV Grant J 2 4,500.00 1529 0501 Est Revenue .J '4,500.00 · 0701 Appropriation J '- 4,500.00 TOTAL 9,000.00 ' 4,500.00 4,500.00 PREPARED BY: BD. OF SUPV APPROVAL: ACCT. APPROVAL: ENTERED BY: Melvin Breeden DATE: 12/15/2003 Ella W. Carey DATE: 1/7/2004 DATE: DATE: COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Steve Snell Department of Engineering Ella W. Carey, Clerk, January 9, 2004 Secondary'System of Hi§hways, Request for Resolution At its meeting on January 7, 2004 the Board of Supervisors took action to adopt-the following resolutions: to accept roads in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase lA, into the State Secondary System of Highways to accept roads in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase 3B, into the State Secondary System of Highways Attached are original signed documents fOr your processing. /ewc Attachments The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vi rginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of January 2004, adopted the following reSOlution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street(s) in Briarwood Subdivision, Phas.e lA, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 7, 2004~ fully incorporated heroin by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision. Street Requirements of the Vi rginia Department of-'fransportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, thatthe Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in' Briarwood Subdivision, Phase lA, as described .on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 7, 2004, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to [}33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mr. Bowerman Seconded by: Mr. Reeker Yeas: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dottier, Mr. Reeker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant. Nays: None. Absent: None. A Copy Teste: Ella W. Carey, Clerk, CMC~ Board of County Supervi~o,r,~ ) In the County of Albemarle By resolution of the.governing body adopted January 07, 2004 The follmving Form SR-SA is hereby attached and incorporated as part of the governing body's resolution for changes in the secondary system of state highways. Report of Changes in the Secondary System of State Higl~a5 s Form SR-~A Secondary Roads Division 5/1/99 Project/Subdivision Briarwood PhaSe l-a Type of Change:' Addition The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory pmvisiort or provisions cited, are hereby requested, the right of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is guaranteed: Reason for Change: Addition, New subdivision street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: ~j33.1-229 Route Number and/or Street ,Name a Hummingbird Lane, State Route Number 1594 Deec#p#on: From: Intersection Of Rt.1593 Sunset Ddve To: Cul De Sac A distance of: 0.06 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks'Office on 8/7/1996, Deed Book 1556 Pg.99-102, with a width of 50' Sparrow Lane, State Route Number 1592 Descrip#on: From: Intersection Rt. 1576 Briarwood Drive To: Intersection Rt. 1593 Sunset Drive A distance of: 0.07 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 12/7/1995, Deed Book 1508 Pg.123-125, with a width of 5(7 Sunset Drive, State Route Number 1593 Descdp#on: From.* Intersection Rt.1592 Sparrow Lane To: Intersection Rt. 1594 A distance of: 0.05 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 8/7/1996, Deed Book 1556 Pg.99.102, with a width of Page 1 of 1 The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of January 2004, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street(s) in Bdarwood Subdivision, Phase 3B, deScribed on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A)dated January 7, 2004, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown` on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase 3B; as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 7, 2004, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-2.2.9, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street ReQuirements: and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted fight-of- way; as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Mr. Bowerman Seconded by: Mr. Rooker Yeas: Nays: None. Absent: None. Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Boyd, Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Rooker, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Wyant. A Copy Teste: Ella~/. Carey~Clerk, ~)ic Board of County SUpA, fvisors In the County of Albemarle By resolution of the governing body adopted January 07, 2004 The follo~ing Form $R-5~1 is hereby a~ached and incorporated as part of the governing body rs resolution for changes in the secandary system of state highways. Report of Changes m the Secondary System of State HighWays Form SR-5~ Secondary Roads Division 5tl/99 tdrojectJS ubdivision Briarwood Phase 3-b Type of Chang~ Addition The following additions to the Secondary System of State Highways, pursuant to the statutory provision or provisions cited, are hereby requested, the right of way for which, including additional easements for drainage as required, is gUaranteed: Reason for Change: Addition, New subdivision street Pursuant to Code of Virginia Statute: ~33.1,Z29 Route Number and/or Street Name Bluejay Way, State Route Number 1596 · Descrfption: From.- InterseCtion Rt.1575 Austin Drive To: Cul De Sac A distance of: 0.05 miles. Right of Way Record: Filed with the Albemarle County Clerks Office on 6/27/1995, Deed Book 1475, Pg.,~8, with a width of 40' Page' 1 of 1 David P. Bowerman ~o Kenneth C. Boyd R[vanna Lin&say G. Dorrier, J~ Scot~v~lle COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Office of Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596 (434) 296-5843 FAX (434) 296-5800 January 9, 2004 Dennis S. Rooker Jack Jouett Sallp H. Thomas' Samuel Miller David C. Wyant White HaL Mr. Charles R. Schuyler, Director The Nature Conservancy of Virginia '490 Westfield Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Dear Mr. Schuyler: This letter is to inform you that at their meeting on January 7, 2004, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors took. action to support legislation to enable the creation of the Rivanna River Basin Commission. It is understood that such legislation will be introduced by' SenatOr Creigh Deeds in the 2004 session of Virginia's General Assembly. RWT, Jr./ewc Senator Creigh Deeds Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Printed on recycled paper The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 7th day of January 2004, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street(s) in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase lA, described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 7, 2004, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street(s) meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the road(s) in Briarwood Subdivision, Phase lA, as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 7, 2004, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of- way, as described, exclusive of any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Recorded vote: Moved by: Seconded by: Yeas: Nays: Absent: A Copy Teste: Ella W."Carey, Clerk, CMC Board of County Supervisors The road(s) described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Hurnmin,qbird Lane (State Route 1594) from the intersection of Route 1593 (Sunset Drive) to the cul-de-sac, as shown on plat recorded 08/07/1996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1556, pages 99-102, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.06 mile. 2) Sparrow Lane (State Route, 1592) from the intersection of Route 1576 (Briarwood Drive) to the intersection of Route t593 (Sunset Ddve), as shown on plat recorded 12/07/1995 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1508, pages 123-125, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.07 mile. 1) Sunset Drive (State Route 1593) from the intersection of Route 1592 (Sparrow Lane) to the intersection of Route 1594 (Hummingbird Lane), as shown on plat recorded 08/0711996 in the office the Clerk of Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1556, pages 99-102, with a 50-foot right-of-way width, for a length of 0.05 mile. Total Mileage - 0.18 mile. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Paving Request for Blenheim Road (Rt. 795) between Rt. 708 and Rt. 713 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for private citizen to pave Blenheim Road (Rt. 795) between Rt. 708 and Rt. 713 STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs.,Tucker, Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade,Graham AGENDA DATE: January 7, 2004 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: N ~..~ REVIEWED BY: X VDOT received a request to pave Blenheim Road (Rt.795) between Rt. 708 and Rt. 713, and has requested comments from the County. To date, staff is still gathering information regarding this request. In the mean time, there has been clearing on both sides of Blenheim Road. VDOT, staff, and residents have been concerned that the paving process has started. This report is to provide the Board with the information gathered to date. STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. 3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County. DISCUSSION: This section of Rt. 795 is not on the County's Secondary Road Pdority List. The property was recently sold to Mumielago LLC from Westvaco Corporation, and the new owner has continued logging operations. VDOT has met with the property owner on site to review the process involved to pave a road by a private citizen. The property owner will be submitting road plans to VDOT. They will also be providing a written explanation of the proposal to the Director of Engineering (Mark Graham) and VDOT in the near future. VDOT has indicated it will mail letters to adjacent property owners explaining the project. Staff could not obtain a definite timetable for these items, because the information is dependent on the applicant. Staff will provide the Board of Supervisors all of this information when it is available. At this time, the applicant does not have permission to work within VDOT's right-of-way. VDOT has not issued an environmental permit and has contacted the applicant with their concerns about the current logging operation. Staff will continue to monitor these concerns and update the Board of Supervisors. Staff has also driven this section of Blenheim Road. It is located between two paved sections of Rt. 795. According to VDOT's records, there have been twelve persons injured and one person killed in six total crashes between January 1, 1992 and June 30, 2003 along this section of road. VDOT anticipates the ultimate cross-section of Rt. 795 between Route 713 and Route 708 to be 18' of pavement with a 2' shoulder, which is typical of a paving project in rural Albemarle County. The most current number of vehicle trips per day on this section of road is 40. Staff is in the process of determining the impact this paving wil have on the Rural Areas. However, staff cannot complete its evaluation without the project plans and the description of the project. RECOMMENDATION: This re port is provided for information only. Staff will continue to monitor this matter and update the Board of Supervisors in the future. 03.165 t7-12-03AI0:14 RCVD FAX (434) 972-4126 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434) 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012 December 15, 2003 Brian S. Ray, L.S. Roger W. Ray & Assoc.,Inc 1717-1B Allied Street Charlottesville, VA 22903 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 14, Parcels 7 & 8 (Property of Dorothy Sheridan Estate and Wachovia Bank) Section 10.3.1 Dear Mr. Ray: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. The County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination is as follows: The portion of Parcel 7 that is the residue of Tax Map 13, Parcel 11 is comprised of two separate parcels. Tract [A], as identified on the map key and containing 436.75 acres has four (4) theoretical development rights. Tract [B], as identified on the map key and containing 91 acres has five (5) theoretical development rights. The portion of Parcel 7 that existed in 1980 and is identified on the map key as [C], [D], [E], [F], [G] & [HI is determined to be one parcel with five (5) theoretical development rights. Tax Map 14, Parcel 8 that is identified as [I] and [J] on the map key is determined to be one parcel with five (5) theoretical development rights. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows. A map key, prepared by Roger Ray and Associates showing the location of Tracts [A] through [I], the 1980 tax map and the current tax map are attached to this determination. Tax Map 14, Parcel 7 (Part- This is the portion of the former TM 13-11 that was added to TM 14-7 in 1999 [A] [B] The most recent instrument for Tax Map 13, Parcel 11 recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed I:\DEPT~BCZS\Determin of Parcel\14-7&8 MonffairFinal.doc Dorothy Sheridan Estate December 15, 2003 Page 2 Book 298, page 592, dated February 2, 1952. This deed conveyed eight tracts of land from James S. Carpenter and May R. Carpenter to John E. Sheridan. Below is a description of Tract FOURTH that contains Tax Map 13, Parcel 11, as shown on the 1980 tax map. FOURTH: This property consisted of three tracts of land that were conveyed to James Carpenter by the deed recorded in Deed Book 289, page 352. The tracts are described as follows: (a) All that certain tract or parcel of land on the Pasture Fence Mountain containing, by estimation 596 acres, being the remainder of 992 N acres. A plat of the original parcel, made by Simms and Parrott, dated September 1881, is of record in Deed Book 250, pages 444 - 445. The 596-acre tract includes [A] on the map key. (b) All that certain tract or parcel of land adjacent to but not adjoining said tract of 596 acres' described under (a) above and adjoining the tract of 396 acres containing 6 acres. The 6-acre tract is identified as Parcel 9 on Tax Map 13. It is not a subject of this determination. The 396 acres is designated as Tax Map 13, Parcel 10. (c) All that certain tract or parcel of land in Brown's Cove near Doylesville, containing 91 acres, more particularly described on a plat by Hugh F. Simms, S.A.C., dated April 1919, of record in Deed Book 170, page 102. (This plat is in the file) This is [BI on the map key. The 91-acre tract is identified as [B] on the map key. The deed notes that reference is made to all of the deeds and plats for a further and more complete description of the three tracts of land conveyed by this paragraph. It is determined that the recordation of this deed established FOURTH Tract (a), containing 596 acres [A] and FOURTH Tract (c), containing 91 acres [B] as separate parcels of record, as defined in Section 10.3. Deed Book 1836, page 171, dated March 23, 1999, contains a Deed of Release in which heirs of Phillip Lee Sheridan decline to exercise a right of first refusal and direct that the parcel be sold. Deed Book 1836, page 177, dated June 10, 1999, conveyed an undivided one-half interest in 236.25 acres from Wachovia Bank and Dorothy F. Sheridan under the Will of John E. Sheridan to L. Dale Shenk and John D. Eshlman. The property is shown on a I:~DEPq'~CZS~3etermin of Parcel\14-7&8 MontfairFinal.doc Dorothy Sheridan Estate December 15, 2003 Page 3 plat by Roger W. Ray and Assoc. dated June 3, 1999. It is a portion of Tax Map 13, Parcel 11. The residue of the parcel is added to Tax Map 14, Parcel 7. One (1) development right is assigned to the 236.25-acre parcel. The 436.75-acre residue retained four development rights. The plat notes, "Should an official determination of parcels of record for T.M. 13-11 disclose more than one parcel exists, then those additional development rights shall be assigned with the residue of T.M. 13-11 being added to T.M. 14-7." It is determined that this deed did not serve to combine the parcels. The note on the plat regarding the potential that an official determination would disclose additional parcels preserves the separate identity of the parcels described as Tract FOURTH (a) and (c) in Book 298, page 592. Therefore, as a result of this transaction, Tax Map 13, Parcel 11 retained 236.25 acres and one development right. The 436.75-acre residue of TM 13-11 was allotted four development rights. These four development rights are assigned to the tract described as Tract FOURTH (a), designated as [A] on the map key. Tract Fourth (c), designated as [BI'on the map key has five development rights. Tax Map 14, Parcel 7 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF 1980 [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] The most recent instrument for Tax Map 14, Parcel 7 recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 298, page 592, dated February 2, 1952. As noted above, this deed conveyed eight.tracts of land from James S. Carpenter and May R. Carpenter to John E. Sheridan. Below is a description of Tract FIFTH that contains the portion of Tax Map 14, Parcel 7. FIFTH: All that certain tract or parcel of land in Brown's Cove near Doylesville, containing 56 acres. A further and more complete description of this land is contained in Deed Book 298, page 80. The deed states further, "While some of aid tracts of land above described are described on plats of survey, others are not, and some of the plats are old and may not be entirely accurate. Conveyance of all of said tracts of land hereinabove described is therefore in gross and not by the acre, it being the intent of this deed to convey to said John E. Sheridan all the lands owned by James S. and May R. Carpenter, situated in White Hall Magisterial District of Albemarle County, Virginia." The applicant has submitted deeds and plats that show Tracts [C], [D], [E], [F], [G] & [H] - were either separate parcels or residues of land transactions prior to 1921. However, on I:\DEP'r~BCZS~etermin of Pamel\14-7&8 MontfairFinal.doc Dorothy Sheridan Estate December 15, 2003 Page 4 the basis of this deed, it is determined that the parcel identified as Parcel 7 on the 1980 tax map and further identified as [C], [DJ, [El, [FI, [G] & [H] on the map key is a single parcel of record in as defined in Section 10.3. This determination is based on the following: This determination is consistent with the definition of "lot of record" found in the Zoning Ordinance: The term "lot of record" means a lot shown on a subdivision plat or other lawful plat or legal description which is lawfully recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia. (Amended 6-14-00) This deed describes the parcel in the singular as a certain tract or parcel. The deed it refers to for a more complete description, Deed Book 298, page 80, dated November 17, 1951, also describes the 56-acre parcel as a single tract. Further, the property was described in Deed Book 232, page 159, dated July 13, 1936 and Deed Book 214, page 278, dated October 3, 1931, Deed Book 175, page 581, dated February 26, 1921 as a single parcel. There is no reference in these deeds to any prior deed that holds this property as anything but a single parcel. Deed Book 227, page 199, dated April 17, 1935 contains a Deed of Trust in which a tract of 91 acres and this tract of 56 acres were put up to secure a bond of $300.00. Here again, the 56-acre parcel is described in the singular. m This determination is consistent with Diversified Development Co. v. Houchang Sendi and Eloise Sendi, a 1994 case decided in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County. It was ruled in that case that the subject property was a single parcel because it had been conveyed by a single metes and bounds description and unambiguous language in the deed described the land as a single parcel. While there was reference to prior deeds, that reference in itself did not signal an intent to treat the parcel conveyed as anything other than a unitary tract. Based on the Sendi decision, we find that the deeds and plats recorded between February-28, 1919 and December 17, 1853 that described these as separate tracts did not preserve the separate identity of these tracts. Tax Map 14, Parcel 8. [I] [J] This determination begins with Deed Book 271, page 204, dated October 30, 1948. This deed conveyed 303.5 acres from Levi P. and Alberta Maupin to H. W. Smith. The deed I:\DEPT~CZS~Determin of Parcel\14-7&8 MontfairFinal.doc Dorothy Sheridan Estate December 15, 2003 Page 5 notes that this property was described as containing 277 acres in Deed Book 264, page 494. However, an old plat made by B.T. Parrott in 1894 showed the property contained 303.5 acres. In 1946 C. H. Shapliegh made a tracing of that old plat and dated it May 1946. This deed (271/204) contains the tracing of the old plat by Shapliegh with changes made by A. L. Cumbow, dated October 25, 1946. The revised plat shows the property was conveyed in two parcels, Tract No. 1 containing 73 acres and Tract No. 2 containing 230 ~ acres. It is determined that the recordation of this deed established these two tracts as separate parcels of record. Deed Book 279, page 64, dated May 1, 1948 conveyed 303 1~ acres from H. W. and Myrtle V. Smith to J. S. Carpenter. The property is described as being in all respects the same property as was conveyed in Deed Book 271, page 204. It is determined that this deed maintains the separate identity of Tract I and Tract 2 as shown on the Cumbow plat that is dated October 25, 1946. Deed Book 298, page 592, dated February 2, 1952 conveyed eight tracts of land from James S. Carpenter and May R. Carpenter to John E. Sheridan. Parcel 8 is a portion of the Tract SECOND described below. SECOND: (Includes [I] [J]) All that certain tract or parcel of land containing 303.5 acres conveyed to James S. Carpenter by the deed recorded in Deed Book 279, page 64. The property was described as containing 277 acres in 1894 on a plat by B.T. Parrott. However, C. H. Shapleigh copied that plat in 1946 and recorded it in Deed Book 271, page 205. C. H. Shapleigh calculated the acreage to be 303.5 acres. It is determined that this deed maintains the separate identity of Tract I and Tract 2 as shown on the Cumbow plat that is dated October 25, 1946. Deed Book 416, page 471, dated March 4, 1966 conveyed 80.56 acres from John E. and Dorothy F. Sheridan to John F. and Nancy R. Sheridan. The property is designated as Tract B on a plat of Paul M. Saunders, dated November 1965. It is further described as being a portion of the land conveyed to John E. Sheridan in Deed Book 298, page 592. Tract B, the 80.56-acre parcel is now identified as Parcel 9A on Tax Map 14. The creation of this parcel reduced the area of both parcels included in Tract SECOND by an unknown amount. Tract A, the 83.07-acre parcel is now identified as Parcel 9B on Tax Map 14. It is not a part of this determination. A composite sketch showing the location of these tracts is in the file. It is determined that this deed maintains the separate identity of Tract I and Tract 2 as shown on the Cumbow plat that is dated October 25, 1946. I:~DEPT~BCZS~Determin of Parcel14-7&8 MontfairFinal.doc Dorothy Sheridan Estate December 15, 2003 Page 6 Deed Book 611, page 490, dated December 21, 1976 conveyed 43.60 acres from Dorothy F. Sheridan and the National Bank and Trust Company, Executors and Trustees under the will of John E. Sheridan to John F. and Nancy R. Sheridan. The property is shown on a plat by Morris Foster, dated December 20, 1976. It is further described as consisting of three parcels: ONE: A portion of T.M. 14, P. 8A, described also as a portion of Tract THIRD in Deed Book 298, page 592, containing 16.29 acres. (This tract is adjacent and to the north of the 303 ~ acres shown on the Cumbow plat. It is not a part of the property that is the subject of this determination.) TWO: A portion of T.M. 14, P. 8A, described also as a portion of Tract Second in Deed Book 298, page 592 containing 17.01 acres. (This is a portion of [I]) THREE: A portion of T.M. 14, P. 8A, described also as a portion of Tract Second in Deed Book 298, page 592 containing 10.30 acres. (This is a portion of [I]) It is determined that this deed maintains the separate identity of Tract I and Tract 2 as shown on the Cumbow plat that is dated October 25, 1946. However, as a result of this transaction the acreage of Tract 2 as shown on the Cumbow plat is reduced. The area of the residue is not provided on the plat. The most recent instrument for Tax Map 14, Parcel 8 recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 628, page 621, dated July 6, 1977. This deed conveyed 9.018 acres from Dorothy F. Sheridan and the National Bank and Trust Company, Executors under the will of John E. Sheridan to John F. Sheridan and Nancy R, Sheridan. The property is shown on a plat by Morris Foster, dated December 20, 1976 and later revised on July 6, 1977. The property is further described as a portion of tax parcel 14-Sand also a portion of a larger tract described as Tract Second conveyed from James S. and May R. Carpenter to John E. Sheridan by a deed dated February 2, 1952 and recorded in Deed Book 298, page 592. The 9.018 acre parcel is now identified as Parcel 8B on Tax Map 14. On the basis of this deed, Parcel 8 is determined to have been comprised of two separate parcels of record as defined in Section 10.3 on the date of adoption of the zoning ordinance. The parcels are the residues of the tracts shown on the Cumbow plat. Each of these parcels had five development rights. The residue acreage of these parcels is not provided on the revised plat. Deed Book 1398, page 733, dated November 10, 1993 conveyed 48.113 acres from Dorothy F. Sheridan and the Jefferson National Bank, Executors and Trustees under I:\DEP'F~CZS~Determin of Parcel~14-7&8 MonffairFinal.doc Dorothy Sheridan Estate December 15, 2003 Page 7 the will of John E. Sheridan to John F. Sheridan and Nancy R, Sheridan. The parcel is described as being a portion of Tract SECOND conveyed to JOhn E. Sheridan by the deed recorded in Deed Book 298, page 592. The parcel is shown on a plat by Morris Foster, dated April 27, 1982. The plat indicates that the 48.113-acre parcel is to be added to Parcel 9A. No development rights were transferred with the 48.113-acre parcel. This transaction conveyed all of what remained of the property identified as Lot 1 on the 1946 plat by A. L. Cumbow, with the exception of approximately 2.8 acres. This area is identified on the map key as Tract [J]. Based on the information submitted with the application, we have determined that Parcel 8 is comprised of one parcel that includes [I] and [J] on the map key. This determination takes the following factors into account: We acknowledge that this deed references Deed Book 298, page 562, which in turn references Deed Book 271, page 205 which includes the plat by A. L. Cumbow. That plat shows Parcel 8 was comprised of two separate parcels; Lot I with 73 acres and Lot 2 with 230.5 acres. We acknowledge that there is no indication in the deed or on the plat that it was the intention of the owner to include the entire fee of Lot I in this conveyance. The distances and bearings on the Foster plat do not agree with those on the Cumbow plat. The departing lot line on the Foster plat indicates that it was known that a portion of the original Lot I was not conveyed with the 48.113 acres. However, the following supercedes this finding. We find no express language that either reserves or creates the 2.8 acre area as separate parcel. It appears that, while the owner was aware of the A. L, Cumbow plat, the 48.113 acre off-conveyance did not preserve the separate identity of the original Lot I and Lot 2. = Regulations in effect in 1982 when the plat was drawn and in 1993 when the deed and plat were recorded required parcels to have frontage, a building site, the amount of residue of revised parcels and a designation of development rights. The 2.8 acre area did not meet these criteria. This determination is based on the information submitted with the application and public records. We may reconsider this determination upon receipt within thirty days of additional information regarding the owners' intent or other considerations concerning the area identified as [J] on the map key. I:\DEP'IABCZS\Determin of Parcel\14-7&8 MontfairFinal.doc Dorothy Sheridan Estate December 15, 2003 Page 8 Based on this history, these development rights may be utilized if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum number of lots containing less than twenty-one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty-one acres may be created as the property can support, if all other applicable regulations can be met. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a dght to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: John E. Sheridan Estate C/O Wachovia Bank P.O. Box 40062 Jacksonville, FL 32203-0062 John E. Sheridan Estate C/O Sheila Walsh P.O. Box 14061 Roanoke, VA 24038 Gay Carver, Real Estate Department, . Ella Cary, Clerk to Board of Supervisors Reading File Enclosed: Map key, 1980 Tax Map & 2002 Tax Map I:\DEP'r~czs\Determin of Parcel~14-7&8 MontfairFinal.doc / ./' )'. /' XI Il i \ FAX (4,34) 972-4126 lq_12-O3AlO:14 RCVD COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Building Code and Zoning Services 401 Mclntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 TELEPHONE (434} 296-5832 TTD (434) 972-4012 December 11, 2003 Audrey Mayo P.O. Box 425 Earleysville, VA 22936 RE: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS - Tax Map 19, Parcel 4B(Property of Audrey A. Mayo) Section 10.3.1 Dear Ms. Mayo: The County Attorney and I have reviewed the title information for the above-noted property. It is the County Attorney's advisory opinion and my official determination that Tax Map 19, Parcel 4B is comprised of two separate parcels. Parcel A is the residue of Tract #1 as identified in Deed Book 329, page 80. Parcel B is the residue of Tract #4 as identified in Deed Book 329, page 80. Each of these parcels contains five (5) theoretical development rights. The location of these parcels is shown on a composite sketch attached to this determination. The basis for this determination is summarized as follows. Our records indicate Tax Map 19, Parcel 4B contains 116.652 acres and two dwellings. The property is not in an Agricultural Forestal District. The most recent deed for this property is recorded in Deed Book 1441, page 674. This determination begins with Deed Book 329, page 80, dated December 19, 1956, by and between Arline D. Kyger in her own right and as Trustee and Executrix of the Estate of Robert L. Kyger, and National Bank and Trust Company, Executor and Trustee of the Estate of Robert L. Kyger, parties of the first part and Clifford G. Allen and Audrey C. Allen, parties of the second part. The deed conveyed five adjoining tracts or parcels of land situated on both sides of State Route 663 and containing in the aggregate 524.6 acres of land. The property is shown on a plat by A. R. Sweet and Associates, dated December 11, 1956 that is attached to this deed. These tracts are described, in part, as follows. (1) A tract containing 251 acres known as the Dr. Richards Place. This was conveyed to Dr. Kyger by the deed recorded in Deed Book 148, page 235. I:~DEPT~CZS~Determin of Parcel~19-4B Mayo.doc Audrey Mayo December 11, 2003 Page 2 (2) ^ tract of 127 1/8 acres and a tract of 1 acre that were conveyed to Dr. Kyger by the deed recorded in Deed Book 295, page 9. (3) A tract of 11 acres that was conveyed to Robert L. Kyger by the deed recorded in Deed Book 310, page 468. (4) That tract of 135 acres that was conveyed to Robert L. Kyger by the deed recorded in Deed Book 273, page 590. These tracts aggregate 525 1/8 acres as described in the deeds, but were found to aggregate 524 6/10 acres as shown on the plat by A. R. Sweet and Associates, that is dated December 11, 1956 and is attached to this deed. On the basis of this deed, the 251-acre tract, the 135-acre tract, the 127 1/8-acre tract and the 11-acre tract were each lots of record on the date. of recordation. Deed Book 148, page 235 described the 251- acre tract as two separate lots. However, the entire area shown as Lot I has been off conveyed. Only a portion of Lot 2 remains within the bounds of the of what is now Parcel 4B. The 1-acre portion of Tract #2 is not considered to be a lot of record with a development right. Rather, it is described in Deed Book 234, page 486 as a strip of land on the west side of Route 663, created as the result of the relocation of the road. This strip of land is not within the bounds of what is now Parcel 4B. Deed Book 414, page 341, dated September 22, 1965 conveyed 3.51 acres from Clifford G. Allen and Audrey C. Allen to the Commonwealth of Virginia. The land is located on both sides of Route 663. As a result of this transaction, the residue is calculated to contain 521.09 acres. Deed Book 478, page 312 is a Deed of Partition dated October 5, 1970. This deed conveys the 524.6-acre tract to Clifford G. Allen and Audrey C. Allen Deed as tenants in common. This is the same property conveyed to these parties as tenants by the entirety in Book 329, page 80. Between May 25, 1960 and May 15, 1979, ten tracts of land were divided from the 524.6 acre property and conveyed to various parties by Clifford G. Allen and Audrey C. Allen. There is no language in any of the deeds or on the plats that serve to combine the five tracts identified in Deed Book 329, page 80. The locations of the tracts are shown on a composite sketch attached to this determination. These transactions are described as follows: I:~DEPT~BCZS~Determin of Parcel~19-4B Mayo.doc Audrey Mayo December 11, 2003 Page 3 Deed Book 354, page 233, dated May 25, 1960, conveyed 68.85 acres to West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company. The property is described as being a portion of Tracts 2and 4 conveyed by Deed Book 329, page 80 and is shown on a plat by Paul M. Saunders, dated May 1960. The residue is calculated to contain 452.44 acres. Deed Book 444, page 10, dated May 14, 1968, conveyed 30.01 acres to Frederick & Concetta Schenkel. The property is described as being a portion of the land conveyed by Deed Book 329, page 80 and is shown as Tract A on a plat by William S. Roudabush, dated May 2, 1968. The residue is calculated to contain 422.43 acres. Deed Book 445, page 260, dated May 15, 1968, conveyed 100.01 acres to Camp C'est La Vie. The property is described as being a portion of the land conveyed by Deed Book 329, page 80 and is shown on a plat by William S. Roudabush, dated April 19, 1968. The residue is calculated to contain 322.42 acres. Deed Book 458, page 259, dated April 22, 1969, conveyed 27.95 acres to James D. & Bobbie J. Bower. The property'is described as being a portion of the land conveyed by Deed Book 329, page 80 and is shown as Tract B on a plat by William S. Roudabush, dated May 2, 1968. The residue is calculated to contain 294.47 acres. Deed Book 490, page 176, dated June 29, 1971, conveyed 43.41 acres to Pricilla B. Foss. The property is described as being a portion of the land conveyed by Deed Book 329, page 80 and is shown on a plat by William S. Roudabush, dated June 21, 1971. The residue is calculated to contain 251.06 acres. Deed Book 574, page 205, dated June 1, 1975 conveyed 19.08 acres to David W. and McCrea S. Kudravetz. The property is described as being a portion of the land conveyed by Deed Book 329, page 80 and is shown on a plat by William S. Roudabush, dated May 6, 1975. The residue is calculated to contain 231.98 acres.. Deed Book 589, page 652, dated March 1, 1976 conveyed 39.40 acres to George B McCallum, Iii and Barbara D. McCallum. The property is described as being a portion of the lanct conveyed by Deed Book 329, page 80 and is shown on a plat by William S. RoudabQsh, dated November 2, 1971. The residue is calculated to contain 192.58 acres. Deed Book 599, page 6, dated June 28, 1976, conveyed 51.9 acres to Audrey Marie Allen Mayo and Susan Jane Allen. The property is described as being a portion of the land conveyed by Deed Book 329, page 80 and is shown on a plat by William S. Roudabush, dated May 8, 1975. The residue is calculated to contain 140.68 acres. I:~)EPT~CZS'~Deterrnin of Parcel~l 9-4B Mayo.doc Audrey Mayo December 11, 2003 Page 4 Deed Book 619, page 186, dated May i, 1977, conveyed 21.08 acres to George and Barbara W. Kudravetz. The property is described as being a portion of the land conveyed by Deed Book 329, page 80 and is shown on a plat by William S. Roudabush, dated March 23, 1977. The residue is calculated to contain 119.6 acres. The most recent instrument for this parcel recorded prior to the date of adoption of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, (December 10, 1980) is in Deed Book 617, page 11. This deed, dated May 15, 1979 contains a certificate of plat. The plat shows a subdivision of the property that is described as being a portion of the land conveyed by Deed Book 329, page 80. The 2.55-acre parcel is shown on a plat by William S. Roudabush, dated April 27, 1977. The residue is calculated to contain 117.05 acres. This agrees with the note on the plat stating the residue of Parcel 4B is 117 +/- acres. On the basis of this deed, the remainder of the 524.6-acre property, containing 117 +/- acres is determined to be comprised of two (2) separate parcels. One is the residue of Dr. Richards Place, identified as Tract #1 in Deed Book 329, page 80. The other is the residue Of Tract 4 in Deed Book 329, page 80. Deed Book 1441, page 674, dated November 21, 1994 conveyed those certain tracts of land known as Tax Map 19, Parcel 4B and Tax Map 18, Parcel 65 from Audrey Marie Allen Mayo, Executor of the Estate of Clifford G. Allen and Trustee of the Trust U/W Clifford G. Allen and as Executor of the Estate of Audrey C. Allen to Audrey A. Mayo. The parcels are described as containing 116.652 acres and 2.55 acres respectively, more or less. This is the residue of the land conveyed by the deed recorded in Deed Book 329, page 80 after numerous off-conveyances. This 'transaction had no effect on the status of the parcels or the associated development rights. The 2.55 acres parcel is not a subject of this determination. The 116.652-acre parcel is comprised of two separate parcels, as described above. The location of the parcels is shown on the enclosed sketch. The separate acreages have not been calculated. Each of these parcels contains five (5) theoretical development rights. These d~velopment rights may be utilized if all other applicable regulations can be met. These development rights are theoretical in nature but do represent the maximum. number of lots containing less than twenty-one acres allowed to be created by right. In addition to the development right lots, as many parcels containing a minimum of twenty- one acres may be created as the property can support, if all other applicable regulations can be met. I:~EPT~CZS~Detennin of Parcel~19-4B Mayo.doc Audrey Mayo December 11,2003 Page 5 If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a dght to appeal it within thirty days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Section 15.2-2311 of the Code of Virginia. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. The date notice of this determination was given is the same as the date of this letter, if you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerely, John Shepherd Manager of Zoning Administration Copies: George B. McCallum III 250 East High Street Charlottesville, VA 22902 Gay Carver, Real Estate Department, Ella Cary, Clerk to Board of Supervisors Reading File Enclosures: Location of Parcels A and B Four tracts referenced in Deed Book 329, page 80 Off-conveyances I:~:)E~CZS~Deten'nin of ParceM g-,lB Mayo. doc SCAIZ: I'* ~ 400' 444.Z0' 117' T. M. 19 Parcel 4 B (Residue) C. G. ALLEN D.B. 329p. 80 ~ x 2. \ NOTE; Metes E~ 9ounds Token From Pr~r PlOts Of Record. No Field Work Involved. ~EING APRIL COMPO$1'TE PLAT OF PROPERTY OF C. G. ALLEN THE RESIDUE ~B TAX ,N E A REA R LYSVI ,ALBEMARLE COUNT~ VIRGINIA MAP Z9 ~ w,u.,.,,,, s. ~ouo,,,us,.' ,,,c.'::~ A P;~fc.,.-~*e~ eof. per. lea '. '~-~'. cffrrrfqfo Ld#O slfitvfrots . Cbdeffesvlf/e · I'~bb :' ' iff Ill -.4 R ~0 "il .-:.~. .!.i!.'~ ' '}" ' ' ':;i :.-il ~.,~i* / - ' : ~.' .-...': :~ '~-'-':~.'...: :- .._..;-.-- .'.¥..-~- ~ i '"OFF- Albemarle County . SerVice Serving & Conserving November 24, 2003 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 McInfire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed is a copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2003. This report is being distributed to our trustees, financial advisors, underwriters and rating agencies, as well as central depository institutions and other interested parties, in order to both satisfy reporting requirements and provide current financial and statistical data on the Authority's operations. I welcome any comments or suggestions, and hope that you find this report useful. Sincerely yours, Raoul James Kister Finance Director Enclosure 168 Spotnap Road · P.O. Box 2738 ° Charlottesville, VA 22902 ° Tel (434) 977-4511 · Fax (434) 979-0698 www. acsanet.com COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Update_on North Pointe Project SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Update on activity of committee appointed to discuss the proposed North Pointe development project STAFF CONTACT(S): Tucker, Foley, Graham, Cilimberg, Kamptner, Catlin, Echols AGENDA DATE: January 7, 2004 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: ITEM NUMBER: I N FORMATION: INFORMATION: Following a work session on the proposed North Pointe development project at its December 3, 2003, meeting, the Board of Supervisors appointed a committee to work with staff and the applicant to see if resolution could be reached regarding the project's conformance with the county's Comprehensive Plan, es pecially the Neighborhood Model and the Open Space Plan. The Board appointed two of its members, Dennis Rooker and Ken Boyd, along with two Planning Commissioners to form the committee. The Planning Commission selected Bill Edgerton and William Craddock as its re presentatives to the committee. The committee was directed to meet with staff and the applicant to consider physical design and land use issues and see where agreement could be reached towards an ultimate recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. DISCUSSION: The Committee had its initial meeting on Tuesday afternoon, December 23, attended by the four appointed committee members listed above, county staff, the applicant, and several members of the public. The discussion was divided into two major topic areas, the first being the project's specific physical design and land use elements and the second being the broader, overarching issues that also are critical to the project. Prior to the discussion, committee members were reminded of their purpose and charge as articulated by the Board of Supervisors, and were asked to focus their attention and energy towards providing specific guidance and direction to both staff and the applicant with regards to the issues that would be brought before them. Staff's presentation to the committee included several slides on the Washingtonian Center project in Gaithersburg, Maryland, to represent a vision of what a regional commercial center could ultimately be following the Neighborhood Model principles. While acknowledging that it may not be possible to achieve that vision in total yet in this market, staff also presented an alternate design to illustrate what could be done with the North Pointe plan to allow for a regional commercial center that moved the proposed project in the desired direction. Following presentations by staff and the applicant, the committee identified the following general preferences regarding the physical design/land use issues discussed. While this list reffects the thoughts of the majority of the committee, there were some dissenting opinions on several of these items. [. Committee members expressed a desire to see more single family detached residential provided. 2. Committee members were concerned with the location and scale of the major commercial area of the project and wanted to see increased integration of that commercial area into the rest of the proposed project - including increased attention to pedestrian orientation, impacts on terrain, scale of buildings, and relegated/structured parking. 3. Three committee members expressed strong concern about the footprint of proposed "big boxes" on the site and stated that footprints of any proposed big boxes should not exceed 75,000 square feet, with the possibility of additional vertical space to increase total square footage. 4. The committee did not seek a specific limitation placed on the quantity of stores or the total square footage of commercial space in the regional center, as long as the plan was designed within the context of the #2 and #3 guidelines mentioned above. AGENDA TITL E: Update on North Pointe Project January 7, 2004 Page 2 5. The committee had considerable discussion regarding the potential impact of adding extensive commercial square footage to the local market- there was no specific guidance on this issue beyond committee members requesting a copy of the Fiscal Impact Report for this project which staff will provide. 6. Committee members discussed affordable housing with the recognition of the need for mechanisms dealing with resale. The committee consensus seemed to be that this was a larger issue that would be dealt with countywide by the upcoming affordable housing amendment being considered by the BOS. 7. The committee expressed concern about sensitivity to the natural resources along Northwest Passage and the need to consider protection of those resources. Again following discussion with staff and the applicant, the committee issued guidance on several of the broader issues associated with this project: Transportation: 1. Committee members agreed that the design should reflect future flexibility to allow the main entry roads (North Pointe BIvd and Northwest Passage) to be widened to four lanes if that remains a necessary element in the final plan - the applicant agreed to that request. 2. The committee noted the need to deal with acquiring right of way for the Leake Road connector to allow continuation of the North Pointe BIvd street section to Proffitt Road. 3. The committee discussed the Route 29 frontage improvements where right of way is not currently available and noted the need for any needed right of way to be obtained for improvements to be made. The applicant agreed with that request. 4. The committee requested a summary letter from VDOT that specified all project-related requirements in one document which staff is preparing. Phasing: 1. The committee expressed the need for phasing for Route 29 improvements to be specifically defined as to sequence and dates, with the possibility of construction completion being tied to issuance of the first commercial Certificate of Occupancy. 2. The committee expressed a preference for phasing of the residential portions of the project to occur ahead of or concurrent with the commercial portions, which the applicant agreed to. 3. The committee agreed with the need to examine and respond to the applicant's proposed way of dealing with the section of Proffitt Road between Leake Road and Route 29 North. It was acknowledged that this situation is not yet resolved. School Site: 1. The committee confirmed the need for a 12-acre graded school site based on information provided by school division personnel. 2.Committee was interested in the valuation of the school site. Summary Following the discussion, the committee requested staff and the applicant to work together towards designing a plan that addresses those guidelines summarized above, with the committee to reconvene and consider the new plan alternatives once that work is complete. The applicant agreed to a deferral of a previously scheduled public hearing tentatively set for mid- February to March 17 to allow that work to continue. RECOMMENDATION: This summary is provided solely for the Board's inform ation at this time. Based on the progress of the first meeting and the additional work now required by staff and the applicant, no action is recommended by the Board pending the outcome of future committee work. 03.169 January 2004 Mission · Essential Tasks Assessment · Construction & Maintenance · Planning & Traffic Engineering · Issues Mission The VDOT Charlottesville Residency builds and maintains roads, provides transportation expertise and regulatory authority and facilitates traffic engineering issues for Albemarle and Greene Counties in ways that are: · focused on public safety · fiscally and environmentally responsible · supportive of alternative transportation means · supportive of neighborhood and regional development ESSENTIAL TASKS TASK MAINTAIN SECONDARY & PRIMARY ROADS o ROW: mow, ditch, pipes, trim, signs, patrols o ROADWAY: grade, pave, patch o EMERGENCY OPS o REPAIR & BIlleD BRIDGES o MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT ASSESSMENT (see legend below) ~ (A) REMARKS - Replaced abutment on 606 bridge ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) TASK 2. MANAGE CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM o PE Activities o Project Construction ASSESSMENT REMARKS (see legend below) · (G) - Airport Road, Rt 649, advertisement for construction delayed until 1/2004 - environmental ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) Task 3. CONDUCT PLANNING ACTIVITIES o Issue and review permits o Review site plans and rezoning request o Conduct studies and advise o Inspect and monitor subdivisions Assessment (See legend below) O(G) Remarks - 45 laud use permits issued - 5 Revised plans reviewed & comments provided as needed - 5 new site plans reviewed - 3 Special Use Permits reviewed & comments provided - 7 developments in planning stages - 0 Rezonings reviewed - 5 subdivision plan reviews - 2 subdivisions inspected for acceptance ESSENTIAL TASKS (continued) TASK 4. FACILITATE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT (see legend below) · ((~) o Request and advise on signals & signs o Request and advise on studies & data o Assist with design REMARKS - 5 Traffic issues submitted - 5 Traffic issues outstanding PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING r2004 Albemarle County Six-Year Plan Project Status P rojec t Number Des criptio n Brklge Replacement- Buck/sland Creek Rte 250 E Vario us Lo catio ns Projects I Secondar Roads )n Schedule (Updated ~-03) I Gravel Roads PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING January2004 project Greene SiX Year Plan Project Status Secondary Projects 0.35 Mi. E. Rte 619 ~rlde n and Surface Treat - Oravelro ad 618 0618-O02-P57,NSOI Orange Co. Line IL03[updal:ed 7-02) Watson Road ~Vi~e n and Surface Treat - Gmvelro ad 640 2515 ~ 06404)39-B7,N501 FI:. Rte.633 ~o Dead En~ 11-03N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A I14)5 :updated I0-03) I Gravel Roads CONSTRUCTION PAVING & CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS 04 Perce nt Street Name Project I Description Complete Contract I Dec Jan Feb Mar Cost Various Int. in U000-104-114,050t Traffic Signalization the City of Remarks: Contractor plans to begin signal pole foundations Charlottesville depending on weather. Mountain Vista 0737-002-P68,N501 ISecondary Rd Improvement 90 90 Remarks: Plan te complete all work minus paving by end of December. Pa~ng will be scheduled in the spdng. Scotts~ille Road (NFO)0020-002-126,C501, B608 IBridge over Hardware River 0 , I 0 Remarks: Contractor plans to pour foundation for south side bddge abutment dudng January. Mayo Road 0650-039-P56,N501 ISecondary Rd Improvement 90 90 Remarks: Plan to complete all work minus paving by end of December. Paving will be scheduled in the spring. Various Sec. PM-TB-03 I Asphalt Oveday 95 95 and Pdmary Remarks: Paving Rts 623 & 633 in Greene Co. postponed until Roads spdng. Dyke Road 08'10-039-146, O501 ~Secondsry Rd. Improvement 0 I 0 Remarks: Contractor has procured a staging area; will be installing construction signs; begin cleadng if weather permits. MAINTENANCE Yancey Mills Headquarters DECEMBER Goal: Complete all preventive maintenance inspections by mid-December. Pr MOWING None Pr I PATCHING Rt. 64, 250, 29, 635. Pr 2 GRADE/MACHINE/ADD Rt. 611, 637, 633, 634, 758, 694, 693, 702, 684, 698, STONE 669 Pr 3 DITCH/PIPE Rt. 633, 634, 29, 688, 691 Pr 6 GUARDRAILI MOWING Rt. 635, 637 Pr 5 GUARDRAIL REPAIR Rt. 29, 64 Pr 4 EQUIP MAINT Per schedule Pr EMERGENCY OPS Two snows, Rt 611 water repair Pr ~ OTHER Remove dead trees Rt. 708, 633 JANUARY Goal: Improve equipment maintenance, None Rt. 250, 64, 684, 637, 708 Rt. 683, 782, 637, 688, 811 Rt. 633, 745 Rt. 29, 689, 708, 691 Rt. 29, 64 Per schedule Repair shoulder Rt. 64, 250 Pr 5 MOWING Pr2 PATCHING Pr · GRADE/MACHINE/ ADD STONE Pr3 DITCH/PIPE Pr 6 GUARDRAILI MOWING Pr 4 GUAI~DRAIL REPAIR Pr 7EQUIP MAINT Pr EMERGENCY CPS MAINTENANCE Free Union Headquarters De~ember Rts 687. 672. 666, 662. 643 Clean(~l drains -Rts 606. 810. 671. 649. 668 Rte. 810 Complete Guardrail Damage - Rt 614 Equipment PMs Snow Equipment and Cleanup Sinkhole - Rt 29 and UVA Snow E~gnt - 12/4 - 12/6 Snow Event - 12/13 - 12/15 Snow Event - 12/18 - 12/19 Icy Roads -Rts 676. 631, 29N Debris Removal/isabel -Rts 250, 8~6, 677 Repair sinkhole - Rts 29. 1515 January Goal: Tree and Debris Removal Mowing Complete Tree and Brush Removal/Isabel -Rt 810 Spot Patch As Needed Shoulder Repair - Rt 250 Machine and Add Stone - Rts 606, 643. 661. 662 .673. 675. 756. 766. 776, 671, 668. 678 Clean and Repair Drains - All Dir~ Roads Guardrail and Washout - Rt 614 Per Schedule Pr 8 OTHER Customer Concems Good Housekeeping MAINTENANCE Keene Headquarters DECEMBER JANUARY Pr 9 MOWING Pr I PATCHING Pr 2 GR~DFJMACHINFJ ADD STONE Pr 3 DITCH/PIPE Pr 7 GUARDR~ILI MOWING Pr 5 STORM CLEANUP Pr 8EQUIP MAINT Pr 4 EMERGENCY OPS Pr $ OTHER Goal: tO0 % CLEAN UP FROM HURRICANE Finished for the year Rt. 742 Rts. 708, 795, 633, 774, 699, 718, 697, 712. 722, 723, 703, 713, 717, 856, 711, 760 F~ts. 29, 622, 631, 713, 627 Rt. 26 Rts. 620, 627 As scheduled Picked up trash and dead animals Goal: PATCHING PRIMARY ROUTES Finished for the year Rts, 20, 29, 618, 620, 715, 795 Rts. 713, 774, 712, 627, 717 Rts. 712. 633 Rt. 20 Rts. 631, 795, 723, 722 As scheduled Debris Scotts~ille Bridge Pr MOWING Pr4 PATCHING Pr 2GRADE/MACHINE/ADD STONE Pr I DITCH/PIPE MAINTENANCE Boyd Tavern Headquarters December Goal: Complete patching all primary routes none Rts 64, 22, 53, 231, 20 P. ts 759, 600, 747, 807, 645. 608, 646 Rts. 64, 250, 631,600, 640, 784 January Goal: Co_replete all the gradall work as scheduled ms 640, 600, 784, 639, 769, 700, 747, 783, 647 Gradall Rtes. 22, 649, 20, 231, 250, 769 Opening Pipes----Rts 600, 640, 784, 639, 769, 783, 647, 639, 700 Pr 5 GUARDRAIL/ MOWING none Pr 6 GUARDRAIL REPAIR Pr 3 EQUIP MAINT Pr EMERGENCY OPS Pr OTHER none As scheduled Snow events---Dec. 4, 13, 18, 2003 Repair driveways Ice control from over night freezing, Rts 53, 729. 22 Per schedule Pr MOWING Maintenance STANARDSVILLE HEADQUARTERS December Goal: Ail goals were ~net 100% except long arm mowin.q due to weather. Tuming lanes on Rt. 623 & 622 o~eday by S.L Pr 2 PATCHING Williams completed Pr I GRADE/MACHINFJ ADD Graded & replaced stone on Rt. 614, 628, ~1~, 642 & STONE 629 Pr 3 DITCH/PIPE Replaced pipe on Rt. 676 & 632 January Goal: To have all ~houlder work completed and any snow equipment problems corrected. Patch holes as needed Grade and replace stone on Rts.638, 634, 643, 635 ,63, 640, 618, & 806 Shoulder repairs on Rt.29 N & S Replace pipe on Rt. 642 and fix pipe on Rt. 633 ( separated ) Pr 4 GUARDRAIL/ MOWING Long arm mower on Rt. 29 South Pr 7 GUARDRAIL REPAIR To be repaired by Makco Rt. 29 North Per schedule; clean & repair snow equipment as Pr 5 EQUIP MAINT needed Pr 6 EMERGENCY CPS Snow remoMal and finished clesnup fi-om Isabel Pr OTHER Long arm mowing on Rt. 29 N & S Tree & brush cutting on primary routes As scheduled As needed Equipment LAST MONTH'S NEXT MONTH'S AREA HEADQUARTERS AUTHORIZED/ ABSENT DAYS APPROVED LEAVE PERSONNEL ....... ~,~,1~.~.~1~. ............ [~ .E. ~.~,1~ ~ ~;~ ......... ~..A.,..Y~.... ~1.~1~ ,A,., ,R.~(~.. S uper~ ntendent 1/1 I 12 Maintenance Super~sors 2/1 8 0 Operators 11/t 1 28 6 Frae Union Superintendent 1/1 6 0 Maintenance Supervisors 2/2 7 2 Operators 11/10 35 0 Boyd Tavem Suped rltendent 1/1 I 0 Maintenance Supervisors 2/2 27 22 Operators 10/9 60 22 Keens Superintendent 1/1 8 0 Stanardsviile Bridge/Sign Crews Shop PLANNING Traffic Traffic Site Study Study Plan Project Scoping Review Review Current Status Awaiting site plan Albemarle Towne Center (Sperry) Peter Jefferson/Martha Jefferson Site Ri~anna Village at Glenmore North Pointe Hollymead Pantops Ridge Moore Awaiting site plan. Waiting for proffers to be submitted for comment. Comments on p,uff~rs submitted to County Staff. Initial road design plan comments sent to County Staff. VDOT and County staff are exploring alterative access solutions for the site. Comments on traffic study submitted to County Staff. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Traffic Engineering Issues Under Review: Albemarle Route Location Issue Type Received Description Reviewer 20 At the intersection with Route 600 Signage 12/1/2003 Additional Signing CulpeperTED 250 At Ednam Drive Signage 10/21/2003 Screening CulpeperTED 614 Between Lake Albemarle, Speed 12/18/2003 Complaints of speeding CulpeperTED near 766 & Rt. 810 626 6 Pvmt Markings 11/2112003 Stop Bar Requested Culpeper TED 710 From Route 29 to Route 696 Speed 9/16/2003 Speeding CulpeperTED 727 Route 727. Blenheim Road Speed 743 At intersection with Rock Store Pvmt Markings 795 Route 795, Presidents Road Speed 1250 1250, 1251. 1257, and 1254 Traffic calming Traffic Engineering Issues Under Review: 11/25/2003 Request speed reduction @ Blenheim View Est CulpeperTED 11/5/2003 Pavement Marking Rewew Culpeper TED 11/25/2003 At Orchard Estates Culpeper TED 12/10/2003 Traffic calming in Western Riclge Culpeper TED Greene Route Location Issue Type 29 At Route 607 Signage 33 At StanardsviIle Elem School Signage Received Description Reviewer 9/23/2003 Add Left turn lane on Route 607. Culpeper TED 11/17/2003 School signs Culpeper TED ISSUES COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List- 2004-2010 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Worksession on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan for 2004-2010 and County's Priority List for Road Improvements STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Benish, Wade AGENDA DATE: January 7, 2004 ACTION: × CONSENT AGENDA: INFORMATION: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACH MENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed the County's Six Year Road Priority List and VDOT Six Year Construction Plan at their November 11, 2003 and December 9, 2003 meetings and unanimously recommended approval of the attached Six Year Secondary Road Priority List for 2004-2010. (Attachments I & II) STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. 3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the County's grewth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County. DISCUSSION: As part of its review of the County's Priority List and VDOT Construction Plan, the Planning Commission discussed whether paving a road makes the read safer. (Attachment III - Staff Report and Attachment IV Executive Summary for Second WorksessiOn). Staff has utilized the Transportation Research Center at the Univereity of Virginia to research this question. Based on a study entitled, Accident Relationships of Roadway Width on Low Volume Roads, conducted by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, there is no significant difference in safety on Iow volume paved or unpaved roads. Specifically, the study concluded; "Accident experience does not appearto be significantly different for unpaved versus paved roadway surfaces at traffic volumes of 250 vpd (vehicle per day) or less. At traffic volumes greaterthan this, accident rates are significantly greaterfor unpaved roadways than for paved roadways, all else being equal. Therefore, paving of rural roads with traffic volumes of 250 or more vpd will generally improve their safety. Accident rates increase on unpaved roads as width increases up to 30 feet, perhaps because of higher vehicle speeds on wider unpaved roads." The full study is available for review upon request. This information was presented to the Planning Commission for information purposes only. Staff will use this intervening period between this and the next Six Year Secondary Plan review to continue to review data on this issue to determine if there is merit to modifying County policies involving the paving of unpaved roads. Staff also gave the Planning Commission an update on the Reservoir Road (Rt. 702) project. Reservoir Road has been on the County's Priority List as a paving project for many years. Due to the length of this road and its geometrics, it would be infeasible to pave the entire length of Reservoir Road. The Planning Commission supported staff and VDOT's recommendation to change the Reservoir Road project from a paving project to a spot improvement project. As a spot improvement, staff and VDOT recommends these improvements to include paving a portion of Reservoir Road and spot ~mprovements at the most sedous locations (blind curves, poor drainage). These locations have not been identified at this point. VDOT antici pates theywill have these locations identified in the Spring, 2004. The revised County Six Year Secondary Road Priodty List 2004-2010 (Attachment I) has removed this project as a paving project and replaced it as a spot improvement (proposed priority #48). Staff also provided the Panning Commission information on Proffit Road and the estimated cost of all projects on the County's Priority List. This information can be found on Attachment IV. 19-12-03P0t: t4 RCVD AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List- 2004-2010 January 7, 2004 Page 2 Finally, the Planning Commission expressed a desire to utilized Secondary Road Funds to construct sidewalk projects independent of road construction where they provide for important and necessary pedestrian movement and cannot be funded through other sources. RECOMMENDATION: Staff and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the County Six Year Secondary Road Priority List 2004-2010 (Attachment I), and the VDOT Draft Six Year Secondary Construction Program 2004-2010 (Attachment II). Staff recommends the Board schedule a public hearing on each, inclusive of its recommendation to pave part Reservoir Road and conduct spot improvements at the most serious locations. Attachments Attachment I County Draft Six Year Secondary Road Priority List 2004-2010 Attachment I VDOT Draft Six Year Secondary Construction Program 2004-2010 Attachment III Staff Report -Planning Commission, November 11,2003 Worksession Attachment IV Executive Summary for Planning Commission December 9, 2003 Worksession 03.166 DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2004-05 Through 2009-10 [SOME PROJECTS MAY NO']- BE COMPLETED AS PRIORITIZED DUE TO PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND/OR AVAILABLE FUNDING] ATTACHMENT I VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Month-Year 0 0 County wide 0 0 County wide 1 1 625 Hatton Ferry 2 2 West Leigh Drive 3 3 Corville Farm Road 4 4 Meadow Creek, Parkway 4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway 5 5 649 Airport Road 6 6 651 Free State Road 7 7 Meadow Creek Parkway 8 8 691 Jarmans Gap Road 9 9 649 Proffit Road 10 10 601 Old Ivy Road 11 11 656 Georgetown Road 12 781 Sunset Avenue 13 Southern Parkway 12 14 679 Grassmere Road 15 631 Old Lynchburg Road 16 726 James River Road 17 Hillsdale Drive 18 795 Blenheim Road 19 Eastern Avenue 20 631 Rio Road 21 708 Dry Bridge Road Projects in bold are in the Development Area. County wide Jun-10 Traffic regret. Program Jun-10 Hatton Ferry Jun-10 Rt. 1641- .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Rt. 868 - Rt. $91-D.E. Nov-03 Melbourne Rd to Rio Road Jun-08 Bridge over Meadow Creek Jun-08 Route 29 to Route 606 Dec-03 Free State Road Dec-06 Route 631 to Route 29 Route 240 to Route 684 Dec-08 Rt 29 to 1.6 miles east Jun-12 Ivy Road to 250/29 Byp Route 654 to Route 743 NCL to Fifth St Extended Avon Str. to Fifth Str. .25 miles south of Rt 738 Mar-03 1.35 MI. S. 1-64 to Rt.708 Route 795 to Route 1302 Greenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq. Intersection of Route 790 Route 240 to Route 250 Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane Railroad overpass $750,000 $3O0,0OO $120,000 $500,000 $150,000 $17,161,852 $2,2O4,500 $t2,271,456 $3,350,000 $4,200,000 $10,S00,000 $9,500,000 $7,200,000 $3,200,O00 $100,000 signs,pipe, plant mix projects, same funding Staff working with VDOT and Wh ~ppoorwill, Hollymead, Forest Lakes for traffic calming improvements operation of ferry rural addition rural addition two lane desgin approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RR (associated with project above) widen to four lanes, bike lanes,sidewalks,RS98/99 [13411] proposal to construct road from Rio Rd to Free St Rd to replace substandard bridge [420] County also petitioning for eligibility for primary road funding RS 97/98- funding for PE serve increased traf w/min widening, ped/bike access,RS 1999/00 [2,400] improve alignment, urban x-section with bike/sidewalk, RS 2004/2005 [2273] widen, improve alignment bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000101 [4,800] spot improvement, pedestrain access,urban cross-section, RS 97/98 [17,000] spot and inter. Improve., urban x-sect, upgrade 2 lane. RS 2005~06, ped/bike access[I,100] Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speed Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [485] spot improvements at various locations,RS 2001102 [2,100] spot improvement to improve sight distance,RS 2002/03 [2000] new connector road between Hillsdale Rd and Hydraulic Rd, most of project is located in City limits intersection improvement. [670] Interconnect future neighborhoods str, proj. to include RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk Inter. improve, requested by City, to be funded from private source [23,000] school transp. Dept. request, Iow weight limit Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority list VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Description/Comments 22 843 Polo Grounds Road 23 743 Hydraulic Road 24 866 Greenbrier Drive 25 676 Tilman Road Road 26 614 Garth Road 27 601 Garth Road 28 738 Morgantown Road 29 676 Woodlands Road 30 616 Union Mill Road 31 606 Dickerson Road 32 654 Barracks Road 33 1403 Berkmar Extension 34 Main Street 35 Ridge Road Extended 36 1520 Hollymead Dr Ext 37 Meadows Road 38 678 Owensville Road 39 732 Milton Road 40 810 White Hall Road 41 795 James Monroe Pky 641 Frays Mill Road 641 Frays Mill Road 42 Fifth St Connector Rd 43 Rt. 29 parallel road 44 743 Earlysvilie Road 45 729 Milton Road 46 663 Simmons Gap Rd 47 584 Half Mile Branch Road 48 702 Reservoir Road Month-Year Route 29 to Route 649 Intersection with Rt. 29 (29H250) Intersection with Rt. 29 (29H250) Intersection of Route 250 Intersection of Rt. 676 Intersection of Route 658 at Route 250 intersection of Route 601 FCL to Route 759 Route 649 to Route 743 Intersection of Route 1001 Hilton Heights Rd to Ridge Rd Crozet Avenue to Eastern Avenue end of Ridge Road to Airport Road Route 29 to Rt. 743 Rt. 691 to Rt. 250 Intersection of Route 250 Intersection of 762 Intersection of Route 789 Intersection of Route 53 Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Fifth Street to Avon Street Polo Grounds Rd to Hollymead Dr. Rivanna River to Rt 643 Rt. 53 to Rt. 1120 at int. of Rt. 604 - Buffalo River Rd Rt. 691 to Rt. 797 Fontaine Ave. Ext to Dead end public req. to improv align, spot improv, safety related, RS 2004/05 [1000] improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study [20,000] improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study [8,800] intersection improvement, RS 2003/04 [4,800] intersection improvement, public request [3400] add turning lane at Barracks Farm Road, CATS recomm. [6,300] close west ramp and construct tapered turn lane [1200] [1200] intersection improvement [5400] improve alignment [5,000] improve to handle projected traffic, CHART recommendation, RS 2002/03 [6,700] intersection improvement [6400] new road to serve as parallel road to Rt. 29 new road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan new road to serve Hollymead development area new road to serve hollymead development area new road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan intersection improvement [3,400] spot improvement, requested by public [1,100] Intersection improvement. RS 2003/04.[1,800] recommended from CATS, intersection improvement. RS 2005/05 [3,000] install box culvert,RS 2005/06, not a County priority,a VDOT recommendedsafety project install box culvert, no County Priority, a VDOT recommended safety project connector road NORTH ofl-64, urban cross section new road public request to improv align, spot improv, safety related. RS 2004/05 [8,400] improve road geometrics, two lane rural section [4400] site distance improvement [1000] spot/safety improvement to serve increased traffic w/ minimum widening [680] paving and spot improvements at most dangerous locations [1900] Projects in bold are in the Development Area. Projects in bold and in italics are newon this year's pdority list VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments Secondary Pro posed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Month-Year 49 64'1 Burnley Station Road Norfolk Southern RR 50 602 Howardsville Tnpk .01 miles south Route 626 51 640 Gilbert Station Road Norfolk Southern RR 52 642 P. ed Hill Depot Road .28 miles northeast Rt.708 53 671 Millington Road Intersection of Route 665 54 692 Plank Road Route 29 to Route 712 55 708 Red Hill Road Route 20 to Route 29 56 676 Woodlands Road Route 614 to Route 1050 57 691 Park Road Park Road to Route 250 58 678 Decca Lane Intersection of Route 676 59 743 Advance Mills Road At Jacobs Run 60 795 Hardware Street Near inter, with Rt. 20 61 732 Milton Road at Rt. 53 62 622 Albevanna Springs Rd Intersection of Route 795 63 622 Albevanna Springs Rd Intersection of Route 773 64 680 Browns Gap Tnpk Rt. 240 to Rt. 810 65 611 Jarmans Gap Road Off Route 691 66 1310 Ferry Street .05 miles south of Rt. 6 67 601 Pree Union at Tasmania Drive 68 682 Broadaxe Road Off Dick Woods Road 69 813 Starlight Road Off Route 712 70 654 Barracks/Garth Road Georgetown Rd. to Rt. 601 71 631 Rio Road Meadow Creek Pwy to Stonehenge 72 742 Avon Street Ext. City limits to Mill Creek South 13 73 737 Mountain Vista Road Rt. 6 to Rt. 726 Dec-02 $650,000 14 74 708 Secretarys Road Route 795 to Route 620 Aug-03 $1,170,989 16 75 640 Gilbert Station Road Route 641 to Route 747 Oct-05 $380,000 17 76 633 Heards Mtn Road Nelson CL to Route 29 Apr-07 $360,000 bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [340] Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [410] bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [170] Railroad crossing with no gate [80] intersection improvement [3701 spot improvements, safety related [1,400] improve alignment [1,700] spot improvements at several points, CATS recommendation [2,600] extend to eastern 240/250 street system [640] improve intersection, located near school, CATS recommendation [140] improve approach to bridge [1,000] spot improvement, requested by Scottsville [710] intersection improvement, public request [1100] intersection improvement [1000] intersection improvement [1000] spot improvements, public request [700] Railroad crossing with no gate [210] Railroad crossing with no gate [80] install culvert to prevent requent flooding [1000] spot improvements, public request [140] school request,needs turn-around space [60] pave shoulders and/or off road trail [22,000] upgrade to urban x-section, sidewalk and bikelanes [24,000] improve to urban cross section [1200] unpaved road [90] unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [210] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [300] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [59] Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's pdority list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. VDOT Priority #15 was Reservoir Road, which is now a spot improvement, VDOT will modify their priorities for pubtic hearing VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Secondary Proposed From . To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Description/Comments Month-Year 18 77 606 Dickerson Road 19 78 769 Beam Road 20 79 623 Woods Edge Rd 21 80 784 Doctors Crossing 81 643 Rio Mills Road 82 647 Maxfield Road 83 744 Hacktown Road 84 606 Dickerson Rd 85 643 Rio Mills Road 86 688 Midway Road 87 787 Gillums Ridge Rd. 88 689 Pounding Creek Rd 89 769 Rocky Hollow Road 90 666 Allen Road 91 640 Gilbert Station Road 92 685 Bunker Hill Road 93 790 Holly Road 94 712 Coles Crossing Rd 95 736 White Mtn Road 96 640 Gilbert Station Road 97 734 Bishop Hill Road 98 712 Coles Crossing Rd 99 760 Red Hill School Road 100 722 Old Green Mtn Road 101 806 Estes Ridge Road 102 645 Magnolia Rd 103 712 North Garden Lane 104 668 Walnut Level Road Route 850 to Route 1030 Feb-08 Off Route 20 north Oct-08 Route 616 to dead end Mar-09 Route 600 to Route 640 Aug-10 Rt. 29 to I miles west Rt. 22 to Dead End Rt. 250 to Rt. 73t Rt. 1030 to Rt. 763 1 mile west Rt. 29 to Rt. 743 Rt. 635 to Rt. 824 Route 682 to Route 708 Rt. 250 to Rt. 635 Rt. 20 to Dead end Route 664 to Dead end Route 784 to Route 20 Route 616 to Dead end Rt. 795 to dead end Rt. 692 to Rt. 29 Rt. 635 to Dead End (incl. section n. of Rt. 636) Rt. 747 to Rt. 784 Route 795 to Rt. 1807 Rt. 713 to Rt. 795 Route 29 to Dead End Rt. 6 to Rt. 602 663-Dead End Rt. 608 to Orange CL Route 29 to Route 760 Rt. 810 to dead end $1,336,073 $200,000 $414,975 $1,238,105 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [360] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [50] unpaved roac[, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [420] unpaved roacL, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [360] unpaved road - staff request [1900] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [470] unpaved road -public request [380] unpaved road - staff request [1900] unpaved road- staff request [530] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [360] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [360] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [340] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [330] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [270] unpaved road, R-O-W not available (RRR) [260] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [210] unpaved road, Scottsville request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [230] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [200] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [200] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [200] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [170] unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined [160] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [160] unpaved road, public request, R.O-W undetermined [150] unpaved road, Scottsville request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [140] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined [140] unpaved road, R-O-W not available [140] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [140] Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Secondary Proposed From . To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Description/Comments Month-Year 105 682 Broad Axe Road Rt. 637 to to current paved sections 106 678 Decca Lane Route 676 to Route 614 107 762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt. 732 to Dead End 108 605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt. 743 to Swift Run (including bridge) 109 704 Fortune Lane Rt. 715 to Dead End 110 672 Blufton Road Rt. 810 to Dead end 111 608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646 112 674 Sugar Ridge Road Route 614 to Route 673 113 774 Bear Creek Road NCL to dead end 114 723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 626 115 747 Preddy Creek Road Rt. 600 to Rt. 640 116 707 Blair Park Road Rt. 691 to Dead end 117 600 Stony Point Pass 2,5 miles east to Rt. 231 118 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 mileswest to Rt. 20 119 637 Dick Woods Road Rt. 691 to Rt. 692 120 735 Mt. Alto Road Rt. 602 to Rt. 626 Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's pdodty list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. RRR- Eligible for Rural Rustic Road program unpaved road, R-O-W not available unpaved road, R-O-W not available unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, R-O-W not available unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road -public request unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [140] [140] [130] [120] [120] [110] [100] [100] [90] [80] [70] [50] [50] [20] [20] $77,257,950 Secondary System County: Albemarle Construction Program Estimated Allocations Incidental Regular Unpaved Fiscal Year Construction Construction Construction 2004-05 $195,000 $3,373,349 $714,330 2005-06 $195,000 $3,415,542 $719,653 2006-07 $1 95,000 $3,386,114 $703,870 2007-08 $195,000 $3,436,709 $710,578 2008-09 $195,000 $3,507,927 $721,895 2009-10 $1 95,000 $3,507,927 $721,895 Totals Page 1 of 7 Total $4,282,679 $4,330,195 $4,284,984 $4,342,267 $4,424,822 $4,424,822 $1,170,000 $20,627,568 $4,292,221 $26,089,789 Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 James L. Bryan VDOT Resident Engineer Date Robert W. Tucker-Co. Exec. Chairman, Clerk, Co. Administrator Date ATTACHMENT II Dist~'ict: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County; Albemarle (in dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding ' Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-t 0 Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count AD Date: Rt. 8002 Total County-Wide Allocation PE $0 PE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ID: CWI CWI RW $0 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Counties, Developers CON $300,000 CON $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Preliminary Enginee/1ng 2001.02 Hollymeade Dr. STATE Total $800,000 Fetal $0 County-Wide Incidental Pti #: 0 7/1/03 $300,000 $$0,000 $50,000 $60,000 $50,000 $60,000 $50,000 $0 Rt. 8001 Total County-Wide Allocation PE $0 PE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ID: CWI CWI RW $0 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 State Forces New Pipe Install., CON $750,000 CON $0 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 2003~04-$150,000 Signal ~ Rte 631/164 STATE Signs,Seeding etc Total $768,000 Total $0 Rev. Sh 2003-4 $300,000 County-Wide Incidental Pti#: 0 7/'l/03 $750,000 $125,000 $125,000 $126,000 $126,000 $125,000 $t25,000 $0 'Rt. 0625 Haffon Fern/ ' PE $0 PE $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ID: 63912 0625-002-BI RW $0 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 State Forces Operate Hatton Fern/ CON $120,000 CON $0 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $2Q,QQQ STATE Total $120,000 Total $0 Budget Item Pri #: 1 $120,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $0 Rt. 1641 West Leigh Dr. PE $20,000 PE $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rural Addition ID: 56085 1641-002-269,C501 RW $20,000 RW $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Reute 250 CON $460,000 CON $460,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 UPGRADE TO STD$. STATE 0.4 Mi. N. Rte. 250 Total $600,000 Total $500,000 Regular 0.4 miles Pti #: 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 'Rt. 0868 Corville Farm Road PE $2,000 PE $2,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rural Addition ID: 0868-002- ,N RW $4,000 RW $4,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contract Route 691 CON $144,000 CON $144,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 RuralAdditlon Funds STATE Monterey Farm Total $160,000 Total $150,000 Regular Pti #: 3 11/1/03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 'Rt. 0631 Mclntira Rd. Ext. PE $1,205,000 PE $1,205,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 New Alignment - 2-lanes ID: 2530 0631-002-128,C502 RW $4,974,000 RW $2,403,000 $1,145,752 $1,354,344 $70,904 $0 $0 $0 31031 Contract .006 km N. Melbourne CON $9,102,352 CON $7,816,600 $0 $0 $635,534 $650,218 $0 $0 STP .075 km N. NS RR Total $t6,281,362 Total $11,424,600 Regular 2.137 km Pri #: 4 6/1/08 $3,866,752 $1,145,752 $1,3E4,344 $706,438 $650,218 $0 $0 $0 Page 2 of 7 Date: 12/'2/03 District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM county: Albemarle (irt dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count AD Date: Rt. 0631 Mclntira Rd. Ext. PE $150,000 PE $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2-lane Bridge ID: 2530 063t-002-128,8612 RW $0 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31001 Contract Bridge over Meadow CON $2,054,500 CON $2,054,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S.R.=93.8 & '/92' Long New Structure BR Creek Total $2,204,500 Total $2,204,600 Regular #10t0 Pti#: 4 6/1/08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0631 MCInflre Rd. Ext. PE $50,000 PE $50,000 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $0 ID: 2530 0631-002-128,8657 RW $0 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31001 J Contract Bridge over CON $1,830,500 CON $t ,830,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 S.R.= 89.8 &'/52'long STATE CSX RR Total $1,880,500 Total $1,880,500 Regular #6025 Pri #: 4 6/1/08 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0649 Airport Road PE $1,237,400 PE $1,237,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-lane divided w/bike lanes and SW ID: 2456 0649-002-158,C501 RW $4,856,550 RW $4,856,550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3H003 Contract Route 29 CON $6,177,506 CON $3,600,100 $2,000,000 $577,406 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue Sh. $1,000,000 1998-9 Paid STP Route 606 Total $12,271,466 Total $9,894,050 $t,200,000 Alrport Access Funds Regular 0.83 Mi. $2,677,406 $2,000,000 $577,406 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Pri #: 5 13411 12/1/03 , I Rt. R000 Free State Connector PE $600,000 PE $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2-Lane design ID: 52393 R000-002-259,C501 RW $750,000 RW $640,000 $110,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3J001 Contract Route 631 (Rio Rd.) CON $2,000,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. Sharing Sf, O00,O00 95-96 Paid STATE Free State Road Total $8,350,000 Total $1,240,000 Regular 0.7 Mi. PrJ #: 6 12/1106 $2,t 10,000 $'110,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 Rt. R00O Meadow Creek Parkway PE $4,200,000 PE $1,552,051 $27,597 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 New Alignmen~ iD: 12981 R000-002-253,PE101 RW $0 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3H001 Contract Rio Road (Rt. 631) CON $0 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. Sh. $800,000 97-98 Pd. Rev. Sh. $1,000,000 07-08 STATE Route 29 Total $4,200,000 Total $I ,662,051 Regular 3.80 Mi. PE Only Pri #: 7 $2,647,949 $27,597 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $2,520,~62 Rt. 0691 Jarmans Gap Road PE $1,200,000 DE $1,200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reconstruction ID: 11129 0691-002-258,C501 RW $2,700,000 RW $515,758 $90,000 $1,400,000 $694,242 $0 $0 $0 14003 Contraot 1.857 km W. Rte 1206 CON $6,600,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $1,305,758 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $t,294,242 Revenue Sho $1,000,000 99-00 STP 0.534 km E. Rte 1206 Total $10,500,000 Total $1,716,768 2-lane Urban W/SW& Bike Lanes Regular 2.391 krn Pri#: 8 2~18 12/1/08 $8,784,242 $90,000 $1,400,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $t,294,242 $0 Page 3 of 7 Date: 12/2/03 Di,st~'ict: Culpeper SECO NDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM county: Albemarle (irt dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count AD Date; Rt. 0649 Profit Road PE $1,500,000 PE $1,000,000 $0 $63,792 $436,208 $0 $0 $0 Reconstruction ID: 54415 10649-002-158,C502 RW $3,000,000 RW $0 $0 $0 $223,468 $766,491 $1,200,000 $810,041 31003 Contract 1.6 Mi. E. Rt. 29 CON $5,000,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,189,959 Rev. Sh. $1,000,000 04-05 Rev. Sh. $1,000,000 05-06 STATE Route 29 Total $9,600,000 Total $1,000,000 Regular 1.60 Mi. Pti#: 9 2237 6/1/t2 $8,500,000 $0 $63,792 $669,676 $766,491 $1,200,000 $2,000,000 $3,8'10,041 Rt. 0601 Old Ivy Road PE $950,000 PE $910,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,000 $0 Reconstruction ID: 8807 0601-002-237,C501 RW $2,500,000 RW $993,400 $0 $0 $0 $0 $247,927 $193,685 3h003 Contract Route 250 CON $3,750,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. Sh. $993,400 01-02 Pd. STP Route 29 Bypass Total $7,200,000 Total $1,903,400 3-tanes W/SW & Bike lanes Regular 0.72 Mi. PE Only Pri #: 10 4358 $5,296,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $287,927 $193,685 $4,814,988 Rt. 0656 Georgetown Road PE $600,Q00 PE $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Spot improvements ID: 12982 0656-002-254,C501 RW $600,000 RW $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31004 Contract Route 654 CON $2,000,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. Sh. $200,000 97-8 Rev. Sh. $1,000,000 02-03 STATE Route 743 Total $3,200,000 Total $700,000 Regular 0.86 mi. PE only Pti #: 11 13500 $2,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,500,000 Rt. 0679 Railroad Crossing PE $3,000 PE $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Flashing Lights & Gates ID: 17172 0679-002-260,FS713 RW $1,000 RW $1,000 SO ${3 $0 $0 $0 $0 16012 Railroad 0.25 Mi. S. RT. 738 CON $96,000 CON $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Authorized 3/27/03 STATE #224-689E Total $100,000 Total $'100,000 Regular NS Railroad Pri #: 12 485 3/27/03 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0737 Mountain Vista Rd. PE $20,000 PE $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 54425 0737-002-P68,N501 RW $20,000 RW $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 6 CON $610,000 CON $610,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Unpaved Road-R/H/Ava#able STATE 0.9 Mi. E. Rte. 6 Total $650,000 Total $650,000 Unpaved 0.9 Mi. Pri #: 13 75 12/t/02 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0708 Secretary's Road PE $30,000 :'E $30,000 $0 I $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 11130 0708-002-P77,N502 RW $50,000 ~W $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 620 CON $1,090,989 CON $926,171 $164,818 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0' RA/VAva#able STATE Route 795 Total $1,170,989 Total $1,006,171 Unpaved 3.08 Mi. Pti #: 14 151 8/t/03 $164,818 $164,8'18 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Page 4 of 7 Date: 12/2/03 District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (ill dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-t0 Type of Project Length Traffic Count AD Date: Priori~ # Rt. 0702 Reservoir Rd. PE $20,000 PE $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain and Surface Treat ID: 54426 0702-002-P71,NS01 RW $60,000 RW $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 29 Ramp CON $1,321,586 CON $918,880 $402,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No R/W Available STATE End of Maintenance Total $1,401,666 Total $998,880 Unpaved 2.40 Mi. Pti#: 15 406 12/1/06 $402,706 $402,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0640 Gilbert Station Road PE $20,000 ~E $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 54427 10540-002- ,N RW $40,000 RW $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 641 CON $320,000 CON $0 $86,806 $233,194 $0 $0 $0 $0 No RightofWayAvailable STATE Route 747 Total $380,000 Total $0 Unpaved 0.70 Mi. Pri #: 16 230 10/1/05 $380,000 $146,806 $233,194 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0633 Hoards Mt. Road PE $20,000 ;E $0 $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain and Surface Treat ID: 54428 0633-003- ,N RW $40,000 RW $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Nelson Co. Line CON $300,000 CON $0 $0 $136,200 $163,800 $0 I $0 $0 No RlghtofWayAvailable STATE Route 634 Total $360,000 Total $0 Unpaved 0,50 Pri#: 17 59 4t1/07 $360,000 $0 $196,200 $163,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0606 Dickerson Road PE $40,839 BE $0 $0 $40,839 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 54429 0606-002-P ,N RW $95,234 ~W $0 $0 $95,234 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 850 CON $1,200,000 CON $0 $0 $154,166 $438,558 $365,309 $241,947 $0 No R44/Available STATE Route 1030 Total $1,336,073 Total $0 Unpaved 1.99 Mi. Pri#: 18 170 2/t/08 $1,336,073 $0 $290,259 $438,558 $365,309 $241,947 $6 $0 Rt. 0769 Beam Road PE $10,000 BE $0 $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 59273 0769-002- ,N RW $t5,000 ~W $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 1484 CON $175,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $76,512 $98,488 $0 $0 No Right of Way-Available STATE End of Maintenance Total $200,000 Total $0 Unpaved 0.27 Mi. Pri#: 19 50 10/1/08 $200,000 $0 $0 $t01,612 $98,488 $0 $0 Ri. 0623 Woods Edge Road P.E $15,000 PE $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 59274 0623-002- ,N RW $50,000 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 16003 Contract 0.5 Mi. S. Rte 616 CON $349,975 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $149,975 $200,000 $0 No R/WAvallable Possible Pave In Place STATE End of Maintenanc~ Total $414,976 Total $0 Unpaved 0.90 Pri#: 20 140 3/t/09 $414,976 $0 $0 $0 $214,975 $200,000 $0 $0 Page 5 of 7 Date: 12/2/03 DiStrict: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (iR dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-I0 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 200~05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-t0 Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count AD Date: Rt. 0784 Doctors Crossing Rd. PE $25,000 PE $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Sudace Treat ID: 52975 0784-002- ,N RW $75,000 ~W $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,806 $68,194 $0 16003 Contract Route 600 CON $1,138,105 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $211,754 , $721,895 STATE Route 640 Total $1,238,105 Total $0 Unpaved 2.10 Pti #: 21 360 8/1/10 $1,238,106 $0 $0 $0 $3t,806 $279,948 $721,896 $204,456 Page 6 of 7 Date: 12/2/03 Districi: Culpeper County: ^lbemarle Estimated Cost ounty Totals Program Allocation: Report Totals PE RW CON Phase Allocation Total: Balance $11,918,239 $19,850,784 $46,890,513 $78,659,536 Previous Funding $8,599,451 $9,663,708 $18,456,751 $36,719,910 SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (in dollars) 2004-05 through 2009-10 Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Funding $3,318,788 $t0,187,076 $28,433,762 $41,939,826 $47,597 $144,631 $466,208 $6c,000 $60,000 $20,000 $1,385,752 $2,889,578 $1,003,6t4 $823,297 $1,516,121 $1,003,726 $2,849,330 $1,295,986 $2,815,162 $3,458,990 $2,848,701 $3,401,096 Balanceto Complete $2,520,352 $1,564,988 $11,764,497 $15,849,837 $4,282,679 $4,330,195 $4,284,984 $4,342,287 $4,424,822 94,424,822 90 $0 90 90 $0 90 Page 7 of 7 Date: 12/2/03 ATTACHMENT III STAFF PERSON: WORK SESSION: JUANDIEGO WADE, DAVID BENISH NOVEMBER 11, 2003 WORK SESSION: SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD PLAN FOR 2004-2010 Introduction The purpose of this work session is to provide: · Initial overview of the Six Year Road Plan process; · General review of the existing projects on the County's priority list of road improvements and potential projects to be considered for inclusion in this year's revision of the list; and Opportunity for Planning Commission to discuss the County's existing priority list or other potential projects/issues. Six Year Plan Process The Six Year Secondary Road Construction Plan is VDOT's Plan for the allocation of road construction funds for a six year period. It consists of a priority list of projects and a financial implementation plan. The Plan is based on local priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The County typically reviews this priority list of projects every year. Attachment A is the current adopted VDOT Secondary Road Construction Plan. Attachment B is the current adopted County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvement. The focus of this annual review of the Six year Plan is the County's priority list. The VDOT Six Year Road Construction Plan is the implementation tool for this list. Since 1986, the Commission and Board of Supervisors have approved a priority list of road improvement projects that would cost, in total, in excess of available funds over the six-year planning period. With such a list developed, subsequent V-DOT Six Year Plans can be prepared and revised in response to available annual funds. The County has used a locally derived criteria-based rating system to prioritize road improvement projects ~n the County. This system, with some modifications and refinements, has been used since 1988. Once the proposed improvement has been prioritized in its particular category, all of the projects are combined for each category to make one priority list. These categories include spot improvements, major reconstruction, unpaved road, railroad crossing, and bridge improvements. VDOT's draft 2004-2010 Secondary System Construction Plan There are several changes mn VDOT's draft 2004-2010 Secondary System Construction Plan (Attacb_ment C). Staff has outlined these changes in the table below. CHANGES IN VDOT SECONDARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION PLAN 2004-2010 V/DOT's PROPOSED PRIORITY PROJECT CHANGE REASON 4 ~eadow Creek Parkway Cost increased $2,656,752 ROW Cost Increased due Phase II New EAD changed to park property from 6/1/05 to 6/1/08 purchase 5 Airport Road Cost increased $167,506 Construction Cost Increased 8 Jarman's Gap Road Cost increased $5,200,000 Construction, R-O-W, and New EAD changed Preliminary Cost from 8/1/06 to 12/1/08 Increased 10 Old Ivy Road No EAD Reduced allocation/ Budget shortfall 11 Georgetown Road No EAD Reduced allocation/ Budget shortfall Sunset Avenue No longer in VDOT's 6 Yr. Const Reduced allocation/ Plan due to funding issues, Budget shortfall But still identified on County Priority List 16 Gilbert Station Road New EAD changed from 12/1/06 to Construction Cost 10/1/05 Increased Cost increased $20,000 17 Heards New EAD changed from 10/1/06 to Reduced allocation/ Mountain Road Budget shortfall 18 Dickerson Road New EAD changed from 10/1/08 to 20 Woods Edge Rd No EAD Construction, R-O-W, anc Cost increased $49,975 Preliminary Cost Increased 21 Doctors Crossing Rd New EAD 8/1/10 Unpaved road funding Available for project *EAD- estimated advertisement date The biggest change is to Jarman's Gap Road (Priority #8). The $5,200,000 increase moved its estimated ad date and caused all projects listed below it that had an estimated ad date and were not pavmng projects to be delayed as well. Old Ivy Road, Georgetown Road, and Sunset Avenue were affected and no longer have EAD. 2 New County Priority List for Secondary Road Improvement There are proposed changes in the County's Draft Priority List for Secondary Improvements (Attachment D). In addition to the changes noted in the section above, staff received several requests from the public during the year for the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to consider for inclusion on the priority list. Public and VDOT Requests for consideration received include: Name From-To Project 743 Hydraulic Rd 866 Greenbrier Dr 1403 Berkmar Ext. 1520 Hollymead Dr. Ridge Rd Ext. Main Street Meadows Road 663 Simmons Gap Rd 601 Free Union Rd 643 Rio Mills Rd 744 Hacktown Rd 672 Blufton Road 606 Dickerson Road 643 Rio Mills Road 742 Avon Street Ext. 631 Rio Road Fifth Street Connector Barracks/Garth Road Rt. 29 Parallel Road @ Rt. 29 @ Rt. 29 Hilton Hght to Ridge Rd Rt. 29 to Rt. 743 Ridge Rd. to Airport Rd Crozet Ave. to Eastern Av Rt. 240 to Western Ave. at int. of Rt. 664 at Tasmania Drive Rt. 29 to 1 mile west Rt. 250 to Rt. 731 Rt. 810 to Dead end Rt. 1030 to Rt. 763 1 mile west to Rt. 743 Intersection Improvement Intersection Improvement new road new road new road new road new road spot improvement install culvert pave pave pave pave pave City limits to Mill Creek South urban xsection MCP to Stonehenge urban cross section Fifth St. to Avon Street new road Georgetown Rd to Rt. 601 paved shoulders Rt. 643 to Hollymead Dr. road new road There are a total of nineteen (19) new requests. Staff used the criteria-based rating system to prioritize these requests. Staff and/or VDOT generated all but two of the new projects, and most are based on projects identified in various Plans and studies (Comprehensive Plan, CHART/UnJam studies, etc.): Two of the projects are from the public (Blufton and Free Union Roads). Blufton Road is a pavmng project and the Free Union Road is a culvert installation project to prevent frequent flooding. Hydraulic Road and Greenbrier Drive at Rt. 29 were added mn anticmpation of implementing the recommendations of the 29H250 Phase II Study. This study should be completed in Summer 2004. 3 Staff believes the implementation of the study's recommendation is imperative. Main Street and Meadows Road were added based on recommendations of the Crozet Master Plan. The following projects were added based on the proposed Charlottesville Albemarle Area Transportation Study (CHART) update: Berk~ar Drive Extended, Hollymead Drive Ext., and Ridge Road. These roads will enhance the roadway network in the Hollymead neighborhood. The Route 29 Parallel Road from Polo Grounds Road to Hollymead Drive ms identified in the County Comprehensive Plan. Staff also added Simmons Gap (spot safety improvement) and Hacktown Roads (paving). Staff observed that these roads needed improvements while working on projects during the year. Rio Mills Road was requested by staff for paving consideration to accommodate the proposed boat launch just below the reservoir. Staff added Dickerson Road as a paving project (north of Chris Greene entrance to Rt. 29) and Rio Mill Rd (1 mile west to Rt.743) to offer an additional alternate to Rt. 29 in the Hollymead/Piney Mountain area. This project is identified in CHART Vision Plan. Avon Street Extended to the Fifth Street Connector Road will offer an enhanced network for the southern urban area and was a recommendation from the Southern City Study. The Southern Parkway Connector south of 1-64 has been on the Priority List for many years and is still considered the higher priority of the two. Staff also added improving Rio Road from the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway to Stonehenge and Avon Street Extended (City limits to South Mill Creek) for design upgrades. These improvements will add urban cross section, sidewalks, bikelanes mn areas of population concentrations. Barracks/Garth Road from Georgetown Road to Free Union Rd was added to include paved shoulders and/or and off road trail. This project has been discussed during the CIP worksessions and is part of the CHART Vision Plan. They are considered long term projects. 4 Ail of these projects have been added (bold and italicized) to the draft County Six Year Secondary Priority List (Attachment D). Staff believes these projects, including the public requests, merit inclusion in the Priority List of Road Improvements. Unpaved Roads Reservozr Road (Rt. 702) has been on the County's unpaved priority list for several years. It ms partially in the Development Area and serves Camp Holiday Trails. It is listed on the Priority List to be paved from Fontalne Ave. Extended to the end of the road and is listed to be the next unpaved road to complete. The estimated cost is approximately $1,400,000. After thorough discussion with VDOT and several field visits, staff does not believe the project can be completed as listed on the Priority List due the numerous sharp turns and steep banks along the road. The road is not eligible for rural rustic road program. Staff recommends for the project be modified and listed on the Priority List as a spot improvement. As a spot improvement project, the focus will be on addressing general specific sections of the road where there are safety issues (blind curves, washboard areas, etc). This allows V/DOT to undertake improvements at the mosE dangerous sections of the road. Rural Rustic Roads During the previous update of the Priority List, staff informed the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors about VDOT's Rural Rustic Roads (RRR) program. VDOT implemented the Rural Rustic Roads program with the concept to pave more roads with limited funds and doing so with no or minimal encroachment beyond existing ditches and without compromising the safety of the road. Candidates for the rural rustic roads program must meet the following criteria. · The road must be in the County's Six-Year Plan · The road must be part of the secondary system of state highways · The road must have an average daily trip of between 50 and 500 · Local roads that are familiar to most drivers and serve low density land uses The Board of Supervisors must pledge to: · Designate road a rural rustic road · Limit growth along the road through planning and zoning · Pas resolution for each candidate road 5 While encouraged by the concept of the project, particularly the more limited project design and impact, the Board of Supervisors wanted to see a RRR project completed in the County and for staff to develop RRR guidelines before they would consider endorsing this new program. Staff developed guidelines for notifying and receiving comments from residents about the potential use RRR design as a project. The Board of Supervisors (Attachment E) approved these guidelines. The next unpaved road project that is eligible for RRR is Heards Mountain Road -Route 633. VDOT estimates that they will be start this project in Fall 2004. Staff will undertake the attached notification during Spring 2004. Southern Connector (South of 1-64) Staff informed the Board of Supervisors during last year update that the Southern Connector had become eligible for revenue sharing. The Revenue Sharing Program requires a dollar for d~llar match of VDOT revenue sharing funds for up to $1.0 million, total. Staff has been working with VDOT to determine if the road could meet full criteria for secondary construction funding. VDOT has preliminarily informed staff that the Southern Connector does not meet the criteria for secondary funding. Staff has not received this notice in writing. The road is STILL eligible for revenue sharing. The focus of this annual review of the Six Year Plan and work session ~s to review and approve the County's Priority List for Secondary Road Improvements. The VDOT Six Year Road Construction Plan is the implementation tool for this list, and will be adjusted to be consistent with the County's Priority List noted above. Staff will take the Commission's commenss on the proposed Priority List and make the necessary adjustments to both the County's Priority List and the VDOT Secondary Plan. An additional work session(s) will be scheduled to complete the Commission's review, if necessary. Ultimately, the Commission's recommendation on the Priority List and Plan will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Typically, the Commission has not held a public hearing on the Priority List and Six Year Plan. The Board will hold a work session 6 and public hearing on the Commission's recommended Priority List and Six Year Construction Plan prior to adoption. Attachments: A. V DOT Adopted Six Year Construction Plan B. County Adopted Six Year Priority List C. VDOT Draft Six Year Construction Plan D. County Proposed Six Year Priority List E. Notification guidelines for the Rural Rustic Roads program 7 Secondary System County: Albemarle ConstructiOn Program Estimated Allocations ATTACHMENT A F~scal Year 20O3-,04 2004-05 2005-06 2006,-07 2007-08 2O08-09 Totals New Surfa. ce Treatments ""' Total Federal Other $720,031 $3,399,207 $170,000 $4,289,238 $673,341 $3,287,597 $170,000 $4,130,938 $658,814 $3,261,198 $170,000 $4,090,012 $657,796 $3,279,676 $170,000 $4,107,472 $652,877 $3,289,909 $170,000 $4,112,786 $652,877 $3,269,909 $190,000 $4,112,786 $4,015,736 $t 9,787,496 $1,040,000 $24,843,232 Board Approval Date:: 5/7/03 J.L. B/ya~ VDOT Resident Engineer Date Q, istrlct, Culpeper County: Albemarle Board Approval D'ate:: 5/7/03 Route Road Name ~PMS ID Project # Accomplishment FROM Type of Funds: TO Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count 8001 ITotal County-Wide Allocation O: CWl I CWI ~late Forces I NEW PIPE INSTALL., -~ TATE SIGNS SEEDING County-Wide Incidental NEW PLAN~' ~ri #: 0 O Total County-Wide Allocation D: CWI CWI -Contract TRAF~c CALMING ~TATE VARIOUS LOC. Total ~'ounty-Wide Incidental =ri #: 0 0 7/1/03 ~t. 0625 HATTON FERRY PE D: 63912 0625-002- RW :~tate Forces OPERATE HATTON CON ~TATE FERRY Total :~egular (BUDGET ITEM) =ri #: 1 220 7/1/03 WEST LEIGH DRIVE PE G: 56085 1641-002-269,C501 ~ontract Route 250 ~TATE 0.4 N. RTE. 250 {egular 0.4 MI. ~ri #: 2 0 ;It. 9998 CORVILLE FARM ROAD D: 9998-002- ,N ~ontract ROUTE 691 ;TATE MONTEREY FARM ~.egular 3ri #: 3 {t. 0631 MctNTIRE RD. EXTENDED J3:2530 0631-002-128.C502 .'ontract .. NCL CHARLOTTESVILLE ;TP CSX RAILROAD ~egu ar 1,37 MI. ~d #: 4 0 age 2 of 7 Estimated Cost AD Date: PE $0 PE SO RW $0 RW $0 CON $600,000 CON $0 Total $600,000 Total $0 711/03 PE $0 =E $0 RW $0 ~W $0 CON $300.000 CON $0 $300,00O Total $o $o PE $o $0 RW $0 $120,000 CON $o $120,000 Total $o $20.000 PE $20,000 RW $20.000 RW $20,000 CON $460,000 CON $460,000 Totai $600,000 Total $500,000 Previous Funding 12/1/02 PE $2,000 PE $2,000 RW $4,000 RW $4,000 CON $144,000 CON $144,000 Total $150,000 Total $150,000 11/1/O3 SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (in dollars) 2003-04 through 2008-09 PROJECTED FISCAL yEAR ALLOCATIONS 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 I $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 $~0,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $60,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $o $o $o $o $o' $o I $o . $o. $o. $o ' $o. ~ $~88,918 ' $soo,ooo $700,000 $0 $0 i~ Additional Funding Balance to Scope of Work ~Required ~C°mplete L~~FHWA # BUDGET ITEM 2003-04 $150,000 SIGNAL ~ RT · ~, 631/164 Rev. Sh. 2003-4 $300000 $600,000 Prelim. Engineering 2001-02 Hollymeade Dr. $300,000 $120,000 I RURAL ADDITION $0 ~ $0 Upgrade to minimum s[an(Jads & add t Rural Addtffon Funds $0 NEW AUGNMENT-2 fanes $0 Date: 5/7/03 D[st~ct: ,Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM Coun~ Albemarle (in dollars) Board Approval D'ate:; 5F//03 2003-04 through 2008-09 ~oute Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work =PMS ID Project # Funding " , Complete FHWA # ~,ccomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 2003-04 2004-05 I 2005-06 2006-07. 2007-08 J 2008-09 Type of Project Length I =dority #~ Traffic Count AD Date: ~ -~t. 0631 MclNTIRE RD. EXT. PE $150,000 =E $150,000 D: 2530 0631-002-128,B612 RW $0 ~W $8 ;ontract ' BRIDGE OVER CON $2,054,500 ~ON $2,054,500 , , 2-lane 8ddge 3R MEADOWCREEK Total $2,204,600 Fora/ $2,204,500 :~ri #: 4 o 6/1/o5 $8 $o $0 $8 $0 $0 $8 $8 =,t. 06:~1 MctNTIRE RD. EXT. PE $50,000 mE $50,000 D: 2530 0631'Q02'128,B657 RW $0 RW $0 ~'ontract BRIDGE OVER CSX RR CON $1,830,500 CON $1,830,500 ~R NEW ALIGNMENT Total $1,880,500 Total $1,880,S00 ~egular =ri #: 4 ' 0 6/1/05 $8 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 $8 $8 $8 ~.t. 0649 AIRPORT ROAD PE $1,237,400 ! PE $1,237,400 I 4-LANE DIVIDED D: 2456 0649-002-156.C501 RW $4,856,550 I RW $4,856,550 Jontract ROUTE 29 CON $6,010,000 ]CON $948,042 . I REVENUE SHARING 99 Pd .~TP ROUTE 606 Total $12,103,950 Total $7,041,992 URBAN DESIGN W/ S. W. & BIKE ~egular 0.83 MI. LANES 12/I/03 $5,061,958 $2,662,068 / $1,256,000 $0 $8 $8 $8 $1,159,900 $~,200,000 AlrportAcceSa Punds 5 1341 .... I 2-LANE DESIGN :.t. R000 FREE STATE ROAD CONNECTO PE $600,000 PE $600,000 -~. 523G3 R000-002-259,C501 RW $750,000 RW $646,254 ;ontract RIO ROAD CON $2.000,000 CON $0 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 1995- 96 ;TP ROUTE 651 Total $3,350,000 Total $1,146,254 . IPaid ;~egular 0.70 MI -'ri #: 6 0I ~ - $2,203,74.6 $93,746 $11(},000 $0 $0 - $0 $8 $2,000,000, I ' ' .... NEW ALIGNMENT ~.t. R000 MEADoWCREEK PK'Y. PE $4,200,000 PE $1,522,365 J ~ ~ 3:12981 R000-002-253,PE101 RW $0 RW $0 I I ' iREVENUE SHARING SgO0, O00 1997- ~'ontract RIO ROAD CON $0 CON $0 i 98 :TP RTE. 29 '· Total $4,200,000 Total $1,522,363 , Paid REV. SH. $1,000,000 2007-08 ~e(~uiar 3.8 MI ' I $2,677,639 $29,696 ' $27,597 [ $11,t98 r $29,676 $19,909 $2,519,66 - $39,909 0 P.E. Only ~n #: 7 0 ~,t. 0691 JARMAN GAP ROAD PE $800,000 PE $650,000 j 9; 11129 0691-002-258,C501 RW $1,300,000 RW $13,199 i ' ;ontract ROUTE 240 ~ . CON $3,200;000 CON " SO i REVENUE SHARING 1999-2000 '~'P -ROUTE 684 Total $6,300;000. Total $653,'~99 ' Sf,O00, O00 ·,* 2-LANE URBAN W/S.W. &BIKELANES ~egular 1.5 MI. ~ .JJ ~ri #: 8 2118 , 8tl/05 i $1,000,000 $1,200,000 . $1,100,000 - $0 $0 ~ $t OOO, O00 ~ ' $4,636,801 $336,801 ~ge 3 of'7 Date: 5/7/03 District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM county: Albemarle (in dollars) .BoardApprovat [3ate:: 5/7/03 2003-04 through 2008-09 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding Complete FHWA # Accomplishment =ROM ~ Required I 'Comments Type of Funds: T° ~ I 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 [ 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count AD Date: Rt. 0649 PROFFIT RD, PE $I ,500,000 PE $1,000,000 iD: 54415 0649-002- ,C RW $3,000,000 i RW $0 r t REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 2004. Contract ROUTE 29 CON $5,000,000 J CON $0 ]05 STP 1.6 MI. E. R'J'E... --29 Total $9,800,000 Total $1,000,000 ~- REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 2005. Regular 1.60 MI. . 06 Pti#: 9 2273 ,,,1/OS .,.0,000 . ..,000 ,,,0.,000 r .,700,000 I $1,900,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 2.LANESRURALW/BIKELANES Rt. 0601 OLD IVY ROAD PE $950,000 PE $910,000 ID: 8807 0601-002-237,C501 RW $2,500,000 RW ~93,400 Contract ROUTE 250 REV. SHARING S 1,000,000 2000-01 CON $3,760,000 l CON $0 I3-LANES W/E.W. & BIKE LANES STP RTE. 29 BYPASS Total $7,200,000 Total $1,903,400 I PE only Regular 0.7 Pti #: t0 4358 $5,296,600 $0 $0 $360,000 $468,060 ~t,'~)656 GEORGETOWN ROAD PE $600,000 I~E $600,000 . SPOT iMPROVEMENTS ID: 12982 0656-002-254,C501 RW $600,000 RW $100,000 Contract ROUTE 654 CON $2,000,000 CON $0 REVENUE SHARING $200,000 1997- 98 STP ROUTE 743 Total $3,200,000 Total $700,000 REVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 200: Regular 0.8 MI. 03 Pd #: t I 13500 12Jl110 $2,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $60,000 $2,420,000 2.LANES W/$.W. & BIKE LANES Rt. 0781 SUNSET AVE. PE $250,000 DE $13 t . ,2~LANE URBAN W/SW & BIKE LANE iD: 17171~ 078%002- ,C - RW $450,000 RW $0 Contract NCL CH'VILLE CON $950,000 CON $0 J IREVENUE SHARING $1,000,000 200: I04 STATE OLD RTE. 631 Total $!,6~O,000 Total $0 Regular 0.5 MI. PE Only Pri~: 12 1108 10/1/11 $1,660,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000 $1,630,000 Rt. 0679 . RAILROAD CRO.BS1NG ' PE $3,000 °E $3,000 i LIGHTS & GATES - ID: 17172 0679-002-260,FS713 RW $1,000 ~W $1,000 Contract 0.25 MI S. RT. 738 CON $96,000 ~ON $96,000 ' RRP (LIGHTS & GATES) Total $100,000 Total $100,000 . Regular 0.05 MI. ' Pri #: 13 485 8/1/02 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 , $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0744 HUNT CLUB ROAD PE $1,000 =E $1,000 I GATES & LIGHTS ID: .54480 0744.002-663,FS715 RW $0 ~W $0 Railroad NEAR INT, RTE. 22 CON $9,000 3ON $9,000 RRP RAILROAD CROSSING ' Total $10,000 Total $10,000 _- Pti#: 14 640' ' 271/02. , , J , $0 $0 ' '$0 ! . $0 : $0 =age 4 of 7 . Date: 5/7/03 District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (irt dollars) 8oard Approval [~ate;: 5/7/03 2003-04 through 2008-09 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope cf Work PPMS tD Project # Fund{rig Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM ] Required Comments Typeof Funds: TO . 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 I 2007-08 2008-09 Type of Project Length Priority# Traffic Count AD Date: RL 0737 MOUNTAIN VISTA RD. PE $20,00G ~ PE $20,000 D: 54425 0T37-002-P ,N RW $20,000 RW $20 0O0 ~ I ;ontract ROUTE 6 CON $610,000 ~CON $610,000 ~ UNPAVED ROAD RIGHT OP WAY STATE 1.19 MI.E. RT..6 Total $650,000 Total $650,000 _.,.. J AVAILABLE =ri #.' 15 75 12/1/02 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6 Rt. 07Q~ SECRETARYS ROAD PE $30,000 PE $30,000 D: 11130 0708-002-P77,NS01 RW $50,000 ;RW $50,000 ~-ormact RTE, 795 CON $1,050,000 CON $579,365 , ,, J UNPAVED ROAD. PARTIAL RIGHT WAY STATE RT. 620 Total $1,130,000 Total $669,365 Jnpaved 3.08 I =d ~ 16 151 8/1/03 $470,636 $200,000 $'270,635 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~t. 0702 RESERVOIR ROAD PE. $20,000 PE $20,000 ' I D: 64426 0702-002-P N RW $60,000 RW $50,000 ;onlract ROUTE 29 RAMP CON $I ,321,586 CON $398,849 I UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WAY ~TATE DEAD END Total $1,401,58G Total $478,849 I Jnpaved 2.4 MI. =ri#: !7 406 12/1/06 $922,737 $620,031 $402,706 $0 $0 $0 ] $0 $0 :~t. 0840 GILBERT STATION RD. PE $20,000 PE $0 0:54427 0640-002-P ,N . RW $40,000 RW $0 ;ontmct ROUTE 641 CON $300,000 CON $0 UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WAY ~TATE ROUTE 747 Total $360,000 Total $0 .~ I . Jnpaved 0.70 MI. =ri#: 18 . 230 12/1/05 " J $360,000 $0 $0 $270,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 {t. 0633 HEARDS MT.RD. " PE $20,000 PE $0 I I r D: 54428 0633,-002.P. ,N RW $40,000 RW $0 ~ontract NELSON CO. LiNE 'CON $300,000 CON $0 . I ~ UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WAY 3TATE ROUTE 634 ' Total $360,000 total $0 [ i Jnpaved 0.50 MI. ' : 1 $360,000 ' $0 $0 $96,555 $72,3651 $189,080 $0 $0 ~t. 0606 DICKERSON ROAD PE $40,839 : PE $0 r D: 54429 0606-002-P ,N RW $95,234 RW $0 ' . I 3ontract ROUTE 850 CON $t ,200,000 CON $0 [ i . 3TATE . ROUTE1030 ' Total $1,336,073 'Total. $0 '; .J . . r . UNPAVED ROAD NO RIGHT OF WAY Jnpaved ' 1.99 MI. ' ' ~ · ~ri ': 20 r 170 10/1708 i '- "$1,336073 }' $0 $0 $290,259 $393,919 i $365,309 $266,589 j $0 'age5 of 7 Date: 5/7/03 Oistrict: c~ipeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (in dollars) BoardAppmval ~ate:: 5/7/03 2003-04 through 2008-09 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Type of Project Length ' Priority # TraffiC'Count AD Date: Rt. 0769 BEAM ROAD i PE $10,000 PE $0 GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD. ID: 59273 0769-002.P N RW $15,000 RW $0 Contract RTE. 1484 CON $175,000 CON .$0 STATE . END STATE MAINT. I Total $200,000 Total $0 Unpaved 0.27 MI Pfi~: 21 50 , 10/1/08 . $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $101,5t2 $48,488 SSO,OOO $0 Rt. 0623 WOODS EDGE ROAD PE $t5,000 PE $0 GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD. - iD: 062:]-002-P ,N - RW $50,000 RW $0 , SAAP 0.5 MI. S. RT. 616 I CON $300,000 CON $0 GRAVEL ROAD.NO RIGHT OF WAY POSSIBLE PA VE IN PLACE STATE END STATE MAINT. Total $365,000 Total $0 Unpaved 0.90 MI. IPE Only Pri #: 22 140 $365,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $115,000 , Rt. 0784 DOCTORS CR(:~SING RD. PE $25,000 PE $0 I GRADE & PAVE GRAVEL RD. iD: 0784-002-P ,N RW $75,000 RW $0 Contract ROUTE 600 CON $1,1~8,105 CON $0 PE Only . STATE ROUTE 640 Total $1,238,105 Iota/ $0 Unpaved 2.9 MI. ~ri ~t: 23 360 $'1,238,105 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $116,291 $1,121,814 'age 6 of 7 Date: 5/7/03 District: Culpeper C~'o,~ty: Albemarle Estimated Cost County Totals Total Allocated: Report Totals PE RW CON Q'figinal Allocation: Balance $72,034,314 $11,769,239 $16,329,784 Previous Funding $31,748,108 $8,020,765 $9,O67,4O3 Additional Funding Required $40,286,206 $3,748,474 $7,262.381 $29,275,351 SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM (in dollars) 2003-04 through 2008-09 PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS $179,686 $427,597 $232,037 $39,676 $34,909 $84,909 $280,547 $1,110,0oo $1,485,234 $2,166,000 $1,201,6o0 $150,ooo $3,829,006 $2,593,341 $2,372.741 $1,902.796 $2,876,277 $3,877,877 $4,289,238 $4,130,938 $4,o90,012 $4,107,472 $4,112,786 $4,112,786 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Balance to Complete $15,442,974 $2,749,66O $870,000 $11,823,314 ~ge / o[ / Date: 5/7/03 VDOT's Secondary Plan County's Proposed Ranking Route Number and Name Location From . To Estimated Estimated Advertisement Cost Date Description/Comments Month-Year 20 21 22 23 64 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 606 Dickerson Road 769 Beam Road 623 Woods Edge Rd 784 Doctors Crossing 647 Maxfield Road 688 Midway Road 787 Gillums Ridge Rd. 689 Pounding Creek Rd 666 Allen Road 640 Gilbert Station Road 685 Bunker Hill Road 790 Holly Road 712 Coles Crossing Rd 736 White Mtn Road 640 Gilbert Station Road 734 Bishop Hill Road 712 Coles Crossing Rd 760 Red. Hill School Road 806 Estes Ridge Road 645 Wildon Grove Rd 712 North Garden Road 668 Walnut Level ROad 682 Broad Axe Road 678 Owensville Road Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's pdodty list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. Route 850 to Route 1030 Oct-08 Off Route 20 north Mar-08 Route 616 to dead end Oct-09 Route 600 to Route 640 Oct-11 Rt. 22 to Dead End Rt. 635 to Rt. 824 Route 682 to Route 708 Rt. 250 to Rt. 635 Route 664 to Dead eno Route 784 to Route 20 Route 618 to Dead end Rt. 795 to dead end Rt. 711 to Rt. 692 Rt. 635 to Dead End (incl. section n. of Rt. 636) Rt. 747 to Rt. 784 Route 795 to Rt. 1807 Rt. 713 to Rt. 795 Route 29 to Dead End 663-Dead End Rt. 608 to Orange CL Route 29 to Route 760 Rt. 810 to dead end Rt. 637 to to current paved sections Route 676 to Route 614 RRR- Eligible for Rural Rustic Road program $1,336,073 $200,000 $365,000 $1,238,105 un 3aved road, un )aved road, un )aved road, un )aved road, un )aved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) public roe uest, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) public request, R-O-W undetermined un )aved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) un paved road, R-O-W not available (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, Scottsville request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, Scottsville request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, unpaved road, unpaved road, unpaved ~ad, R-O-W not available public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) R-O-W not available R-O-W not available [170] [5o] [140] [360] [470] [360] [360] [340] [2701 [260] [210] [230] [200] [200] [2oo] [170] [160] [160] [140] [t40] [140] [140] [t40] [140] VDOT's Secondary Plan County's Proposed Ranking Route Number and Name Location From - To Estimated Advertisement Date Estimated Cost Description/Comments Month-Year 15 16 17 18 19 40 602 Howardsville Tnpk 41 640 Gilbert Station Road 42 642 Red Hill Depot Road 43 671 Millington Road 44 692 Plank Road 45 708 Red Hill Road 46 676 Owensville Road 47 691 Park Road 48 678 Decca Lane 49 743 Advance Mills Road 50 795 Hardware Street 51 732 Milton Road 52 622 Albevanna Springs Rd 53 622 AIbevanna Springs Rd 54 680 Browns Gap Tnpk 55 611 Jarmans Gap Road 56 1310 Ferry Street 57 682 Broadaxe Road 58 813 Starlight Road 59 737 Mountain Vista Road 60 708 Secretarys Road 61. 702 Reservoir Road 62 640 Gilbert Station Road 63 633 Heards Mtn Road Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. .01 miles south Route 626 Norfolk Southern RR .28 miles northeast Rt.708 Intersection of Route 665 Route 29 to Route 712 Route 20 to Route 29 Route 614 to Route 1050 Park Road to Route 250 Intersection of Route 676 At Jacobs Run Near inter, with Rt. 20 at Rt. 53 Intersection of Route 795 Intersection of Route 773 Rt. 240 to Rt. 810 Off Route 691 .05 miles south of Rt. 6 Off Dick Woods Road Off Route 712 Rt. 6 to Rt. 726 Route 795 to Route 620 Ramp to Dead end Route 641 to Route 747 Nelson CL to Route 29 Dec-02 Aug-03 Dec-06 Oct-06 Oct-07 RRR- Eligible for Rural Rustic Road program $650,000 $1,130,000 $1,401,586 $360,000 $36O,OOO Railroad crossing with no lights or gate bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating Railroad crossing with no gate intersection improvement spot improvements, safety related im prove alignment spot improvements at several points, CATS recommendation extend to eastern 240/250 street system m prove intersection, located near school, CATS recommendation improve approach to bridge spot improvement, requested by Scottsville intersection improvement, public request intersection improvement intersection improvement spot improvements, public request Railroad crossing with no gate Railroad crossing with no gate spot improvements, public request school request,needs turn-around space unpaved road unpaved road, full R-O-W not available unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined, sidewalks unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [410] [170] [8o] [370] [1,200] [1,500] [2,500] [640] [140] [1,000] [630] [looo] [1000] [1000] [7oo] [21 O] [8o] [140] [6o] [75] [151] [406] [230] [59] VDOT's Secondary Plan County's Proposed Ranking Route Number and Name Location From - To Estimated Advertisement Date Estimated Cost Description/Comments 18 Hillsdale Drive 19 795 Blenheim Road 20 N/A 21 631 Rio Road 22 708 Dry Bridge Road 23 643 Polo Grounds Road 24 676 Tilman Road Road 25 614 Garth Road 26 601 Garth Road 27 738 Morga.ntown Road 28 676 Owensville Road 29 616 Union Mill Road 30 606 Dickerson Road 31 654 Barrack Road 32 678 Owensville Road 33 732 Milton Road 34 810 Browns Gap Road 35 795 James Monroe Pky n/a 641 Frays Mill Road n/a 641 Frays Mill Road 36 743 Earlysville Road 37 729 Buck Island Rd 38 684 Half Mile Branch Road 39 641 Burnley Station Road Greenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq. Intersection of Route 790 Route 240 to Route 250 Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane Railroad overpass Route 29 to Route 649 Intersection of Route 250 Intersection of Rt. 676 Intersection of Route 658 at Route 250 Intersection of Route 601 FCL to Route 759 Route 649 to Route 743 Intersection of Route I001 Intersection of Route 250 Intersection of 762 Intersection of Route 789 Intersection of Route 53 Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Rivanna River to Rt 643 Rt. 53 to Rt. 1120 Rt. 69t to Rt. 797 Norfolk Southern RR Month-Year $300,000 N/A $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $200,000 N/A $1,200,000 $650,000 $550,000 $35O,OOO $440,000 $60,000 $1,000,000 new connector road between Hillsdale Rd and Hydraulic Rd, most of project is located in City limits intersection improvement. [670] interconnect of future neighborhood streets Inter. improve, requested by City, to be funded from private source [23,000] school transp. Dept. request, Iow weight limit public req. to improv align, spot improv, safety related, RS 200,4/05 [1000] intersection improvement,RS 2003/04 [4,800] intersection improvement, public request [3100] add turning lane at Barracks Farm Road, CATS recomm. close west ramp and construct tapered turn lane [1200] intersection improvement improve alignment [6,3~oo] [5400] [4,600] improve to handle projected traffic, CHART recommendation, RS 2002/03 [6,000] intersection improvement [6400] intersection improvement [3,400] spot improvement, requested by public [1,000] Intersection improvement. RS 2003/04.[1,800] recommended from CATS, intersection improvement. RS 2005/06 [2,700] install box culvert,RS 2005/06, not a County priority,a VDO'F recommendedsafety project install box culvert, no County Priority,a VDOT recommended_safety p.roject .... ~- public request to improv align, spot improv, safety related. RS 2004/05 [8,400] improve road geometrics, two lane rural section [4400] spot/safety improvement to serve increased traffic w/ minimum widening [680] bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [340] Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priodty list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. RRR- Eligible for Rural Rustic Road program VDOT's Secondary Plan County's Proposed Ranking Route Nurnber and Name Location Estimated From - To Advertisement Date Estimated Cost Description/Comments 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 762 Rose Hill Church Ln 605 Durrett Ridge Road 704 Fortune Lane 608 Happy Creek Road 674 Sugar Ridge Road 774 Bear Creek Road 723 Sharon Road 747 Preddy Creek Road 707 Blair Park Road 600 Stony Point Pass 600 Stony Point Pass 769 Rocky Hollow Read 637 Dick Woods Road 735 Mt. Alto Road Month-Year Rt. 732 to Deand End Rt. 743 to Swift Run (including bridge) Rt. 715 to Dead End Route 645 to Route 646 Route 614 to Route 673 NCL to dead end Route 6 to Route 626 Rt. 600 to Rt. 640 Rt. 691 to Dead end 2.5 miles east to Rt. 23'/ 2.5 mileswest to Rt. 20 Rt. 1484 to Dead end Rt. 691 to Rt. 692 Rt. 602 to Rt. 626 unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, R-O-W not available unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, school request, R.O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, school request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [130] [120] [120] I110] [100] ['/00] [90] [aO] [70] [50] [46] [20] [20] Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. RRR- Eligible for Rural Rustic Road program $85,584,314 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2003-04 Through 2008-09 [SOME PROJECTS MAY NOT BE COMPLETED AS PRIORITIZED DUE TO PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND/OR AVAILABLE FUNDING] APPROVDE BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY 7, 2003 VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Description/Comments ATTACHMENT B Month-Year 0 0 CoUnty wide County wide Jun-09 $600,000 0 0 County wide Traffic mgmt. Program Jun-09 $300,000 1 1 625 Hatton Ferry Hatton Ferry Jun-09 $120,000 2 2 West Leigh Drive Rt 250 to .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Dec-02 $500,000 3 3 Corville Farm Road Rt. 691-Greenwood Rd-D.E. Mar-03 $150,000 4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway Melbourne Rd to Rio Road Jun-05 $14,505,100 4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway Bridge over Meadow Creek Jun-05 $2,204,500 5 5 649 Airport Road Route 29 to Route 606 Dec-03 $12,103,950 6 6 651 Free State Road Free State Road $3,350,000 7 7 Meadow Creek Parkway Route 631 to Route 29 $4,200,000 8 8 691 Jarmans Gap Road Route 240 to Route 684 Aug-05 $5,300,000 9 9 649 Proffit Road Rt 29 to 1.6 miles east Jun-08 $9,500,000 10 10 601 Old Ivy Road Ivy Road to 250~29 Byp Aug-10 $7,200,000 11 11 656 Georgetown Road Route 654 to Route 743 Dec-10 $3,200,000 12 12 781 Sunset Avenue NCL to Fifth St Extended Oct-11 $1,650,000 13 Southern Parkway Avon Str. to Fifth Str. $4,000,000 13 14 679 Grassmere Road .25 miles south of Rt 738 Aug-02 $100.000 15 631 Old Lynchburg Road 1.35 MI. S. 1-64 to Rt.708 Dec-08 $1,500,000 16 726 James River Road Route 795 to Route 1302 Dec-08 $800,000 14 17 744 Flunt Club Road near intersection with Rt. 22 Feb-02 $10,000 Projects in bold are in the Development Area. Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority Iisi RRR- Eligible for Rural Rustic Road program s~gns, pipe,plant mix projects, same funding Staff working with VDOT for traffic calming in the Hollymead area in 2001-02, multi-stops, ped. X-walk operation of ferry rural addition rural addition two lane desgin approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes bridge over CSX RR (associated with project above) widen to four lanes, bike lanes,sidewalks,RS98/99 [13411] proposal to construct road from Rio Rd to Free St Rd to replace substandard bridge [420] County also petitioning for eligibility for primary road funding RS 97/98- funding for PE serve increased traf wi min widening, ped/bike access,RS 1999100 [2,200] im prove alignment, urban x-section with bike/sidewalk,RS 2004/2005 [2273] widen, improve alignment bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000101 [4,300] spot improvement, pedestrain access,urban cross-section, RS 97~98 [13,500] spot and inter. Improve., urban x-sect, upgrade 2 lane. RS 2005~06, ped/bike access[I,100] Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speed Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [485] spot improvements at various locations,RS 2001/02 [2,100] spot improvement to improve sight distance,RS 2002/03 [2000] Railroad crossing with no lights or gate. hazard elimination safety funds [640] Secondary System County: Albemarle Construction Program Estimated Allocations ATTACHMENT C Incidontal Regular Unpaved Fiscal Year Constr~tion Construction Construction Total 2004-05 $1 g5,000 $3,373,349 $714,330 $4,282,679 2(X}5-06 $1~5,000 $3,415,542 $719,653 $4,330,195 2006-07 $195,000 $3,386,114 $703,870 $4,284,984 2007-08 $195,000 $3,436,709 $710,578 $4,342,287 2008-09 $195,000 $3,507,927 $721,895 $4,424,822 2009-10 $195,000 $3,507,927 $721,895 $4,424,822 Totals $1,170,000 $20,627,568 $4,292,221 $26,089,789 Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 James L. Bryan VDOT Resident Engineer Date Page 1 of 7 Robert W. Tucker-Co. Exec. Chairman, Clerk, Co. Administrator Date !RECE~, District: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (in dollars} Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route i Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID ~ Project # Funding Complete FHWA # Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Type of Project Length Prl°ribm/# , i Traffic Count ~ AD Date: Rt. 8002 Total County-Wide Allocation ~ PE $0 PE $0 SD $0 SD SD SD SD ID: CWI CWI RW SD RW SD I SD $0 ' SD SD SD SD Counties, Developers CON $300,000 CON $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 PrellminaryEnglneering 2001-02 STATE Total $300,000 Total $0 ' Hollymeade Dr. County-Wide Incidental Prl fl: 0 711103 $300,000 $SO,O00 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $SO,O00 $60,000 SD Rt. 8001 Total County-Wide Allocation PE $0 PE $0 $0 SD SD $0 SD $0 ID: CWI CWI RW SD RW SD SD SD $0 SD $0 $0 State Forces New Pipe Install., CON $750,000 CON SD $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 2003-04.$1~0,000 Signal STATE Signs,Seeding etu rotal $750,000 Total SD Rte 63f/164 Counly-Wide Incidental ' Rev. Sh 2003-4 $300,000 Pti #: 0 7/1/03 $760,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $126,~X~0 $125,000 $126,000 SD Rt. 6,625 l--iai;un Fern/ PE SD PE SD SD $0 $0 SD SD $0 ID: 63912 0625-002-BI RW SD RW SD SD SD SD SD SD SD State Fomes Operate Hatton Ferry CON $120,000 CON SD $20,000 $20~000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 STATE Total $120,000 Total SD Budget Item Pd #: I $120,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $0 Rt. 1641 West Leigh Dr. PE $20,000 ='E $20,000 SD $0 SD SD $0 $0 ,Rural Addition ID: 56085 1641-002-269,C501 RW $20,000 RW $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 250 . CON $460,000 CON $460,000 , SD SD $0 SD $0 SD i UPGRADE TO STDS. STATE ; 0.4 Mi. N. Rte. 250 Total $500,000 Total $600,000 ' Regular 0.4 miles Pri #: 2 $0 $0 $0 SD $0 $0 $0 SD Rt. 0868 Corville Farm Road PE $2,000 PE $2,000 $0 $0 SD $0 $0 $0 Rural Addition ID! 0868-002- ,N RW $4,000 RW $4,000 $0 SD $0 · $0 SD SD Contract Route 691 CON $144,000 CON $144,000 SD SD SD SD SD SD RuralAddiUon Funds STATE Monterey Farm Total $150,000 Totei $'150,000 Regular , Pri #: 3 11/1/03 $0 SD $0 $0 $0 $0 SD $0 Rt. 0631 Mclntire Rd. Ext. PE $1,205,000 =E $1,205,000 SD SD $0 $0 $0 $0 New Alignment - 2-tanes ContractID: 2530 * 0031-002~128,C502.006 km N Me bourne I RW $4,974,000.. RW $2640~,000. ' ' . ' ' $1,145,752 $1,354,344 $70,904 ' SD $0 $0 "- 31001 CON $9,102,352 ~ON $7,816,600 $0 $0 $635,534 $650,218 $0 $0 STP .075 km N. NS RR Total $15,281,352. Total $11,424,600 · _ ' Regular 2.137km Pti #: 4 6/1/08 - $3,856,752 $1,145,752 $1,364,344 $706,438 $650,2t8 $0 $0 $0 Page 2 of 7 Date: 10/22/03 District; Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (in dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 200405 through 2009-10 Route Road Name: Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to I Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding Complate FHWA # Required Comments Accomplishment FROM Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Type of Project Length Pri0rit~ # Traffic Count AD Date: · Rt, 0631 Mctnfire Rd, E~I, PE $180,000 PE $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2-lane Bridge iD: 2530 0631-002-128,B612 RW $0 ~W $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 31001 Contract Bridge over Meadow CON $2,054,500 =ON $2,054,500 $0 $0 S0 $0 $0 $0 I NewS'R'=93'SSt~cture & 192'Long BR Creek Total $2,204,500 rote/ $2,204,600 Regular #1010 ' Prt ~. 4 6/1/08 $0 $0 So SO SO Rt. 0631 MCIntim Rd. E.d. PE $50,000 =E $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $5 $0 $0 ID: 2530 0631-002-128~B657 RW $0 :~W $0 $0 $5 $0 $5 $0 $0 31001 Contract Bddge over CON $1,830,5(X) ~ON 6t,830,500 $0 $13 $0 $0 S0 S0 S.R. = 89,8 &152'long STATE CSX RR Total $1,880,¢~)~ Total $1,88~,600 Regular ~025 ~ #: 4 s/1/o8 SO So $o So Rt. 0649 Airport Road PE $1,237,400 =E $1,237,400 $0 $5 $0 $0 $0 $0 4-lane divided w/bike lanes and SW ID: 2456 0649-002-158,C501 RW $4,856,550 ~W $4,856,550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ 3H003 . Contract Route 29 CON $6,177,506 CON $3,600,100 $2,000,000 $577,406 $0 $0 $0 $0 Revenue Sh. $1,000,0001998-9 Pa/(/ STP Route 606 Total 612,271,466 Total $9,~4,060 $1,200,000 Akport Access Funds Regular 0.83 Mi. $2,6TT,406 Pti#: 5 13411 12/1/03 $2,000,000 $577,406 $0 $0 $0 Rt. R000 Free St~,te Connector' PE $600000 ~ =E $600,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 2-Lane design ID: 52393 R000-002-259,C501 RW $750,000 ~W $640,000 $110,000 $0 . $0 $0 $0 $~_0 3J001 Contract Route 631 (Rit~ Rd.) CON $2,000,000 ~ON '$0 ] $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 STATE Free State Road Total $3,360,000 Total $t,240,008 ; Paid Regular 0.7 Mi. I $2,110,000 $1 t0,000 $0 $0 S0 $0 S0 $?.,OO0,OQQ Pri #: 6 12/I/06 ' . PE Rt, R000 Meadow Creek Pal~ay * PE $4,200,000 $1,552,051 $27,597 $20,000 620,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 New Alignment . ID: 12981 R00O-002-253,PE101 $0 $0 $0 $6 $0 $0 3H001 RW $0 RW $0 Contract Rio Road (Rt. 631) CON $0 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. Sh. $800,00097-98Pd. Rev, Sh. $~ 00000007-08 STATE Route 29 Total $4,200,000 Total $1,652,061 i Regutar 3.80 Mi. . I ' [ PE Only Pri ~: 7 $2,647,94~ I $27,697 $20,000 620,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $2,620,362 Rt. 0691 Jarmans Gap Road PE $1,200,000 PE $1,200.000 $0 $0 J $0 $13 $0 $0 Reconstruction ID: 11129 . 0691-002-258,C801 RW 62,700,000 RW $515,758 ,, $90,000 $1,400,000 $694,242 ; . $0 $0 $0 4003 . Contract t.857 km W. Rte 1206 CON $6,600000 CON $0 t $0 $0 $1,305,758 ~ $2000,000 $2,000,000 $1,294,242 Revenue Sh. Sf,O00, O0099-00 STP 0,534 km E. Rte 1206 Total 610,500,000 Total $1,716,758 2-lane Urban W/SW & Bike Lanes Pri#:Regular8 21182'391 km 12/1/08 $8,784,242 $90,000 $1,400,000 $2,000,000 ~ $2000000 ~ $2,000~ 000 r!' $! 294242 $O Page 3 of 7 Date: 10/22/03 District~ Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (in dollars) Beard Approval Date:: t2/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route Road Nam~ Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work Funding Complete FHWA # PPMS ID Project # Accomplishment FROM Required I Comments Type of Funds: TO 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 I 2008-09 2009-10 Type of Project Length Priority # Traffic Count AD Date: , Rt. 0649 Proffit Road. PE $1,500,000 =E $1,000,000 $0 $63,792 $436,208 $0 $0 $0 Reconstruction ID: 54415 0649-002-158,C502 RW $3,000,000 :;W $0 I $0 $0 $223,498 $766,491 : $1,200,000 $810,041 31003 Contract 1.6 Mi. E. Rt. 29 CON $5,000,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,189,959 Rev.Rev' sh.Sh' $1,000,0005f'000'00005-0604'05 STATE Route 29 Total $9,500,000 Total $1,000,059 Regular 1.59 MI. PTi#: 9 2237 6/1/08 $8,600,000 $0 $63,792 $659,676 $759,491 $1,259,000 $2,000,000 $3,810,041 Rt. 0601 Old hy Road PE $950,~0 :)E $910,000 $0 I $C) $0 $0 $40,000 $0 . Reconstruction ID: 8807 0591-002-237,C6C)1 RW $2,500,000 :;W $993,400 $0 $0 $0 I $0 $247,927 $193,685 3h003 Contract Route 250 CON $3,750,00Q CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I Rev. Sh. $993,40001-02 Pd. STP Route 29 Bypass Total $7,259,000 Total $t,906~00 3-lanes W/SW & Bike laties Regulm 0.72 Mi. I PE Only Pd #: 10 4358 $5,2~,600 , $0 $0 $0 $0 $287,927 $193,685 $4,814,988 Rt. 0656 C.-,ecrgelown Road PE $590,000 PE $600,500 I $0 $0 I SC) $0 $0 $0 J Spot Impruvements ID: 12982 0659-002-254,C501 RW $600,000 r~W $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SCI 31004 Contract Route 654 CON $2,000,000 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rev. Sh. $200,00097-8 STATE Route 743 Total $3,200,000 Total $700,000 ' Rev. Sh. $1,000,00002-03 Regular 0.86 mi. PE only Pti#: '11 13500 $2,600,000 $0 $o $0 $o $o SO $2,500,000 Rt. 0679 Railroad Crossing PE $3,000 =E $3,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Flashing Lights & Gates ID: 17172 067g-002-260,F$713 RW $1,(~0 ~W $1,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16012 Railroad 025 Mi. S. RT. 738 CON $96,000 CON $96,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Aulho#zed3/27/03. STATE //224-659E Total $100,000 Total $100,000 Regular NS Railroad $0 $0 $0 $0 S0 $0 $0; $0 Pf~ #: 12 485 3/27/03 Rt. 0737 Mountain Vinta Rd. PE- $20,000 =E $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat · 16003 ID: 54425 0737-Q02-P68,N501 RW $20,000 ~W $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . . Unpaved Road. R/WAvailable Contract Route 6 CON $610,0(X) CON $610,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 i STATE 0.9 Mi. E. Rte. 6 Total $650,000 Total $6E0,000 Unpaved 0.9 M Pti#: 13 75 12/1/02 r $0 ' $0 , $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0708 6ecretary*s Road PE $30,000 =E $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 I Grade, Drain & ~ldace Treat ID: 11130 0708-002-P77,NS02 RW $50,000 ~W $50,000 ' . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 620 CON $1,090,989 CON $926,171 $164,818 $0 $0 $0 $0 i $Q R/WAvailable STATE Route 795 Total $1,170,989 Total $1,006,171 ' 3.08 Mi; ' ' r Unpaved . ' ' $1~4,818 $164,61a $0 ' $0 ' '$O $0 $0 PTi#: 14 151 8/1/03 , ' Page 4 of 7 Date:- 10/22103 District~ Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (in dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route Road Name Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Ba ance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # Funding Comp ete FHWA # . Accomplishment FROM Required Comments Type of Funds: TO Type of Project i Length I 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Priorit~ # - Traffic Count AD Date: i Rt. 0702 Reservoir Rd. PE $20,030 ;'E $20,030 $0 $0 $0 , $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain and Surface Treat ID: 54426 0702-002-P71,N591 RW $60,000 ~W $60,000 $8 $0 SO 16003 Contract Route 29 Ramp $0 $0 $0 STATE ~ CON $1,321,586 CON $918,880 $402,706 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 No P./WAvailable End of Maintenance Total $1,401,656 Total $998,880 I Unpaved 2.40 Mi. Pri#: 15 406 12/1106 $402,706 $402,705 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3 Rt. 0640 Gilbert Station Road PE $20,000 PE $0 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 54427 0640002- ,N RW $40,000 RW $0 $40,000 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 641 CON $320,030 CON $0 $86,806 $233,194 $0 $0 No RightofWayAvaltable STATE Route 747 $8 $0 · Total $380,000 Total $0 Unpaved 0.70 Mi. Pri#: 16 230 10/1/95 $880,000 $140,806 $2~3,194 $0 $3 $3 ~ $0 $3 H=..;~, Mt, Real] PE $20,000 ~E $0 $0 $20,030 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade Drain and Surface Treat ID: 54428 0633-003- ,N RW $40,000 ;~W $0 $0 $40,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 16003 Contract Nelson Co. Line CON $300,000 CON $0 $0 $136,200 $163,803 $0 $0 $0 No RightofWayAvaitabta STATE Route 634 Total $360,000 'otel $0 Unpaved 0,50 Pti#: 17 59 411/07 $360,000 $0 $165,200 $163,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0606 Dickeraon Road, PE $40,83g PE $0 $0 $40,839 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 54429 0606-002-P N RW $95,234 ;W $0 $0 $95,234 $0 $0 . $0 $0 16003 Contract Route 850 CON $1,200,000 CON $0 $0 $154,186 $438,558 $365,309 $241,947 $0 No R/WAvailable STATE , Route 1030 Total $1,336,073 Total $0 Unpaved 1.99 Mi. Pti#: 18 170 12/1/08 $1,336,073 $8 $290,259 $438,568 $365,309 $241,947 $0 '$0 Rt. 0769 Beam Road PE $10,000 ;'E $0 , $0 $0 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 ~ Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 59273 0769-002. ,N ~ RW $15,000 :~W $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $8 $0 16003 Contract Route 1484 CON $175,000 CON ~ $0 $0 $0 $76,5t2 $981488 $0 ' $0 STATE . End of Maintenance Total $200,000 Total· $0 I No Right of Way Available Unpaved ' .0.27 Mi. Pri #: 19 50 10/1/08 $200,000 ~ $8 $0 $101,$12 $98,488 ~ $0 $0 $0 Rt. 0623 Woods Edge Ro~d PE $15,030 PE $0 ' $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 59274 0623-002. ,N , · RW $50,000 ~ RW $0 $8 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 16003 Contract 0.5 Mi. S. Rte 618 CON $349,97~ CON $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ $149,975 $200,000 - $0 Vo R/WAvailable STATE End of Maintenance Total $414,976 Total $0 . ~ ~ Possible Pave In Place Uppa~ed 0.90 Pti #: 20 140 3/I/09 $414,975 $8 $0 $0 $214,975 $200,000 $8 $0 Page 5 of 7 Date: 10/22/03 District; Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (in dollars) Board Approval Date:: 12/1/03 2004-05 through 2009-10 Route Road Name. Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Scope of Work PPMS ID Project # , Funding Complete FHWA # Required Accomplishment FROM Comments Type of Funds: TO · Type of Project Length 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 Priority # Traffic Count AD Date: Rt. 0784 Doctors Crossing Rd. i PE $25,000 PE $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000 $0 $0 Grade, Drain & Surface Treat ID: 52975 0784-002- ,N RW $75,000 RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,806 $68,194 $0 16003 Contract Route 600 CON $1,138,105 CON $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $211,754 $721,895 STATE Route 640 · To~al $'1,238,106 Total $0 Unpaved 2.10 pti #: 21 360 8/1/10 $1,238,106 $0~ $0 $0 $31,806 $279,948 $72'1,896 $204,466 Page 6 of 7 Date: 10/22/03 D/~trict: Culpeper SECONDARY SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM County: Albemarle (in dollars) 2004-05 through 2009-10 ~ Estimated Cost Previous Funding Additional PROJECTED FISCAL YEAR ALLOCATIONS Balance to Funding Complete Required I 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 County Totals Program Allocation: $4,282,679 $4,330,195 $4,284,984 $4,342,287 $4,424,822 $4,424,822 Report Totals PE $11,918,239 $8,599,451 $3,318,788 $47,597 $144,631 $456,208 ' $60,00o $60,000 $20,000 $2,520,352 · RW $19,850,784 $9,663,708 $10,187,076 $1,385,752 $2,889,578 $1,003,614 $823,297 $1,516,121 $1,003,726 $1,564,988 CON $46,890,5t3 $18,456,751 i $28,433,762 $2,849,330 $1,295,986 $2,815,162 $3,458,990 $2,848,701 $3,401,095 $11,764,497 · Phase Allocation Total: $78,659,536 $36,719,910 I $41,939,826 $4,282,679 $4,330,1 95 $4,284,984 $4,342,287 $4,424,822 $4,424,822 $15,849,837 Balance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Page7 of 7 Date: 10/22/03 / / DRAFT ALBEMARLE COUNTY PRIORITY LIST FOR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 2004-05 Through 2009-10 [SOME PROJECTS MAY NOT BE COMPLETED AS PRIORITIZED DUE TO PROJECT COMPLEXITY AND/OR AVAILABLE FUNDING] ATTACHMENT D VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date 0 0 County wide 0 0 County wide 1 1 625 Hatton Ferry 2 2 West Leigh Drive 3 3 Corville Farm Road 4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway 4 4 Meadow Creek Parkway 5 5 649 Airport Road 6 6 651 Free State Road 7 7 Meadow Creek Parkway 8 8 691 Jarmans Gap Road 9 9 649 Proffit Road 10 10 601 Old Ivy Road 11 11 656 Georgetown Road 12 781 Sunset Avenue 13 Southern Parkway 12 14 679 Grassmere Road 15 631 Old Lynchburg Road 16 726 James River- Road 17 Hillsdale Drive 18 795 Blenheim Road 19 Eastern. Avenue 20 631 Rio Road 21 708 Dry Bridge Road Projects in bold are in the Development Area. Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's pdodty list County wide Traffic mgmt. Program Hatton Ferry Rt. 1641- .4 mi nor. Rt. 250 Rt. 868 - Rt. 691-D.E. Nov-03 Melbourne Rd to Rio Road Jun-08 Bridge over Meadow Creek Jun-08 Route 29 to Route 606 Dec-03 Free State Road Dec-06 Route 63i to Route 29 Route 240 to Route 684 Dec-08 Rt 29 to 1.6 miles east Jun-08 Ivy Road to 250129 Byp Route 654 to Route 743 NCL to Fifth St Extended Avon Str. to Fifth Str. .25 miles south of Rt 738 Mar-03 1.35 MI. S. 1-64 to Rt.708 Route 795 to Route 1302 Greenbrier Dr. to Seminole Sq. Intersection of Route 790 Route 240 to Route 250 Rio Rd @ Pen Park Lane Railroad overpass Month-Year Jun-10 Jun-10 Jun-10 $750,000 $300,000 $120,000 $500,000 $150,000 $17,161,852 $2,204,500 $12,271,456 $3,35O,OOO $4,200,000 $10,500,000 $9,500,000 $7,200,000 $3,200,000 $10C 000 signs,pipe,plant mix projects, same funding Staff working with VDOT and Whippoorwill, Hollymead, Forest Lakes for traffic calming improvements operation of ferry rural addition rural addition two lane desgin approved by County and Comm. Transport. Bd., includes brid ge over CSX RR (associated with project above) widen to four lanes, bike lanes,sidewalks,RS98/99 [1341 I] proposal to construct road from Rio Rd to Free St Rd to replace substandard bridge [420] County also petitioning for eligibility for primary road funding RS 97198- funding for PE serve increased traf w/min widening, pedlbike access,RS t999/00 [2,400] improve alignment, urban x-section with bike/sidewalk, RS 2004~2005 [2273] widen, improve alignment bike/sidewalk access,RS 2000/01 [4,800] spot improvement, pedestrain access,urban cross-section, RS 97198 [17,000] spot and inter. Improve., urban x-sect, upgrade 2 lane. RS 2005106, peal/bike access[I,100] Extend to 5th St., with pedestrian/bike facility, and Neighborhood street design/speed Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [485] spot improvements at various locations,RS 2001/02 [2,100] spot improvement to improve sight distance,RS 2002/03 [2000] new connector road between Hillsdale Rd and Hydraulic Rd, most of project is located in City limits intersection improvement. [670] interconnect future neighborhoods str, proj. to include RR underpass and bridge over Lickinghole Crk Inter. improve, requested by City, to be funded from private source [23,000] school transp. Dept. request, Iow weight limit VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Description/Comments Month-Year 22 643 Polo Grounds Road 23 743 Hydraulic Road 24 866 Greenbrier Drive 25 676 Tilman Road Road 26 614 Garth Road 27 601 Garth Road 28 738 Morgantc~wn Road 29 676 Woodlands Road 30 6t6 Union rvlill P, oad 31 606 Dickerson Road 32 654 Barracks Road 33 1403 Berkmar F_xtension 34 Main Street 35 Ridge Road Extended 36 1520 Hollymead Dr Ext 37 Meadows Road 38 678 Owensvtlle Road 39 732 Milton Road 40 810 Browns Gap Road 41 795 James Monroe Pky 641 Frays Mill-Road 641 Frays Mill Road 42 Fifth St'Connector Rd 43 Rt. 29 parailet road 44 743 EarlysvilleRoad 45 729 Buck Island Rd 46 663 SimmonsGap Rd 47 684 Half Mile Branch Road 48 641 Burnley Station Road Route 29 to Route 649 Intersection with RL 29 (29H250) Intersection with Rt. 29 (29H250) Intersection of Route 250 Intersection of Rt. 676 Intersection of Route 658 at Route 250 Intersection of Route 601 FCL to Route 759 Route 649 to Route 743 Intersection of Route 1001 Hilton Heights Rd to Ridge Rd Crozet Avenue to Eastern Avenue end of Ridge Road to Airport Road Route 29 to Rt. 743 Rt. 691 to Rt. 250 Intersection of Route 250 Intersection of 762 Intersection of Route 789 Intersection of Route 53 Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Rt. 641 @ Jacob Run Fifth Street to Avon Street Polo Grounds Rd to Hollymead Dr. Rivanna River to Rt 643 Rt. 53 to Rt. 1120 at int. of Rt. 664. Buffalo River Rd Rt. 691 to Rt. 797 Norfolk Southern RR public req. to improv align, spot improv, safety related, RS 2004/05 [1000] improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2 Study [20,000] improvements recommended from 29H250 Phase 2Study [8,800] intersection improvement,RS 2003/04 [4,800] intersection improvement, public request [3400] add turning lane at Barracks Farm Road, CATS recomm. [6,300] close west ramp and construct tapered turn lane [1200] [1200] intersection improvement [5400] improve alignment [5,000] improve to handle projected traffic, CHART recommendation, RS 2002/03 [6,700] intersection improvement [6400] new road to serve as parallel road to Rt. 29 new road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan new road to serve Hollymead development area new road to serve hollymead development area new road as recommended in the Crozet Master Plan intersection improvement [3,400] spot improvement, requested by public [1,100] Intersection improvement. RS 2003/04.[1,800] recommended from CATS, intersection improvement. RS 2005/06 [3,000] install box culvert, RS 2005/06, not a County priority,a VDOT recommendedsafety project install box culvert, no County Priority,a VDOT recommended safety project connector road NORTH ofl-64, urban cross section new road public request to improv align, spot improv, safety related.RS 2004/05 E8,400] ~mprove road geometrics, two lane rural section [4400] site distance improvement [1000] spot/safety improvement to serve increased traffic w/ minimum widening [680] bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [340] Projects in bold are in the Development Area, Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's priority list VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Description/Comments Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Month-Year 49 602 Howardsville Tnpk .01 miles south Route 626 50 640 Gilbert Station Road Norfolk Southern RR 51 642 Red Hill Depot Road .28 miles northeast Rt.708 52 671 Millington Road Intersection of Route 665 53 692 Plank Road F~oute 29 to Route 712 54 708 Red Hill Road F~oute 20 to Route 29 55 676 Owen',,ivilte Road Route-614 to Route 1050 56 691 Park Road Park Road to Route 250 57 678 Decca Lane Intersection Df Route 676 58 743 Advance Mills Road At Jacobs Run 59 795 Hardware Street Near inter, with Rt. 20 60 732 Milton Road at Rt. 53 61 622 Albevanna Springs Rd Intersection of Route 795 62 622 Albevanna Springs Rd Intersection of Route 773 63 680 Browns Gap Tnpk Rt. 240 to Rt. 810 64 611 Jarmans Gap Road Off Route 691 65 1310 Ferry Street .05 miles south of Rt. 6 66 601 Free Union at Tasmania Drive 67 682 Broadaxe Road Off Dick Woods Road 68 813 Starlight Road Off Route 712 69 654 Barracks/ Garth Road Georgetown Rd. to Rt. 601 70 631 Rio Road Meadow Creek Pwy to Stonehenge 71 742 Avon Street Ext. City limits to Mill Creek South 13 72 737 Mountain Vista Road Rt. 6 to Rt. 726 Dec-02 14 73 708 Secretarys Road Route 795 to Route 620 Aug-03 15 74 702 Reservoir Road Fontaine Ave. Ext to Dead end Dec-06 16 75 640 Gilbert Statior Road Route 641 to Route 747 Oct-05 17 76 633 Heards Mtn Road Nelson CL to Route 29 Apr-07 $650,000 $1,170,989 $1,401,586 Railroad crossing with no lights or gate [410] bridge project with Iow sufficiency rating [170] Railroad crossing with no gate [80] intersection mprovement [370] spot improvements, safety related [1,400] improve alignment [1,700] spot improvements at several points, CATS recommendation [2,600] extend to eastern 240/250 street system [640] ~mprove intersection, located near school, CATS recommendation [140] improve approach to bridge [1,000] spot improvement, requested by Scottsville [710] intersection improvement, public request [11001 intersection improvement [10001 intersection improvement [10001 spot improvements public request [700] Railroad crossing with no gate [210] Railroad crossing with no gate [80] install culvert to prevent requent flooding [1000] spot improvements public request [140] school request, needs turn-around space [60] pave shoulders and/or off road trail [22,000] upgrade to urban x-section, sidewalk and bikelanes [24,000] improve to urban cross section [1200] unpaved road [90] unpaved road, full R-O-W not available [210] unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined, sidewalks [406] $380,000 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [300] $360,000 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [59] Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's pdoHty list Projects in bold are in the DevelopmentArea. VDOT's County's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Description/Comments Month-Year 18 77 606 Dickerson Road 19 78 769 Beam Road 20 79 623 Woods Edge Rd 21 80 784 Doctors Crossing 81 643 Rio Mills Road 82 647 Maxfield Road 83 744 Hacktown Road 84 606 Dickerson Rd 85 643 Rio Mills Road 86 688 Midway Road 87 787 Gillums Ridge Rd. 88 689 Pounding Creek Rd 89 769 Rocky Hollow Road 90 666 Allen Road 91 640 Gilbert Station Road 92 685 Bunker Hill Road 93 790 Holly Road 94 712 Coles Crossing Rd 95 736 White Mtn Road 96 640 Gilbert Station Road 97 734 Bishop Hill Road 98 712 Coles Crossing Rd 99 760 Red Hill School Road 100 806 Estes Ridge Road 101 645 Wildon Grove Rd 102 712 North Garden Road 103 668 Wah'lut Level Road 104 682 Broad Axe Road Route 850 to Route 1030 Feb-08 Off Route 20 north Oct-08 Route 616 to dead end Mar-09 Route 600 to Route 640 Aug-10 Rt. 29 to I miles west Rt. 22 to Dead End Rt. 250 to Rt. 73f Rt. 1030 to Rt. 763 ~ mile west RL 29 to Rt. 743 Rt. 635 to Rt. 824 Route 682 to Route 708 Rt. 250 to Rt. 635 Rt. 20 to Dead end Route 664 to Dead eno Route 784 to Route 20 Route 616 to Dead end Rt. 795 to dead end Rt. 711 to Rt. 692 Rt. 635 to Dead End (incl. section n. of Rt. 636) Rt. 747 to Rt. 784 Route 795 to Rt. 1807 Rt. 713 to Rt. 795 Route 29 to Dead End 663-Dead End Rt. 608 to Orange CL Route 29 to Route 760 Rt. 810 to dead end Rt. 637 to to current paved sections $1,336,073 $200,000 $414,975 $1,238,105 unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road - staff request unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road -public request unpaved road- staff request unpaved road- staff request unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road R-O-W not available (RRR) unpaved road public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road Scottsville request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road public re(; uest, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road BOS request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, Scottsville request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined unpaved road, R-O-W not available unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, R-O-W not available [360] [50] [420] [360] [~900] [470] [3aO] [1900] [530] [3601 [3601 [340] [330] [2701 [260] [210] [230] [200] [2OO] [200] [170] [160] [160] [14o] [140] [140] [14o] [14o] Projects in bold and in italics are new on this year's pdodty list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. VDOT's COunty's Route Number and Name Location Estimated Estimated Secondary Proposed From - To Advertisement Cost Plan Ranking Date Description/Comments Month-Year 105 678 Owensville Road Route 676 to Route 614 106 762 Rose Hill Church Ln Rt. 732 to Deand End 107 605 Durrett Ridge Road Rt. 743 to Swift Run (including bridge) 108 704 Fortune Lane Rt. 715 to Dead End 109 672 Blufton Road Rt. 8~0 to Dead end 110 608 Happy Creek Road Route 645 to Route 646 111 674 Sugar Ridge Road Route 614 to Route 673 112 774 Bear Creek RoaC NCL to dead end 113 723 Sharon Road Route 6 to Route 626 114 747 Pmddy Creek Road Rt. 600 to Rt. 640 115 707 Blair Park Road Rt. 691 to Dead end 116 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 miles east to Rt. 231 117 600 Stony Point Pass 2.5 mileswest to Rt. 20 118 637 Dick Woods Road Rt. 691 to Rt. 692 119 735 Mt. Alto Road Rt. 602 to Rt. 626 unpaved road, R-O-W not available unpaved road, BOS request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road, R-O-W not available unpaved road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) unpaved road -public request )dyed road, public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) un un un un un un un un un un )dyed road, )aved road, )avedroad, )aved road, )avedroad, )aved road, )aved road, )aved road, )area road, public request, R-O-W undetermined school request, R-O-W undetermined (PR.R) public request, R-O-W undetermined school request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) R-O-W undetermined public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) school request, R-O-W undetermined public request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) school request, R-O-W undetermined (RRR) [140] [130] [120] [120] [~20] [110] [100] [100] [90] [8o] [70] [50] [50] [20] [2O] Projects in bold and in italics ara new on this year's pdodty list Projects in bold are in the Development Area. RRR- Eligible for Rural Rustic Read program $78,659,536 ATTACHMENT E ALBEMARLE COUNTY NOTIFICATION GUIDELINES FOR THE RURAL RUSTIC ROADS PROGRAM After the project has been identified as being eligible for the RRRP, the Department of Planning and Community Development will: Send notice to adjacent property owners within the project limits three months before estimated advertisement date. The following information will be provided in the notice: Inform residents the road is eligible for the RRRP, and explain the difference between a traditional road paving project and a RRRP project. The notice will indicate the County and VDOT are proposing to use RRRP standards for construction. A map of the length of the project and a graphic depiction comparing the typical cross-section for a traditional road paving improvement and for a RRRP project. Request that property owner contact the Planning Department within two weeks if they have any concerns regarding the proposed project. If a majority of property owners support the RRRP, VDOT will proceed with the RRRP after the Board of Supervisors supports the RRRP; VDOT will proceed with the RRRP after the Board of Supervisors supports the RRRP project in the form ora resolution. Staffwill work with those opposing the project to try to address concerns. Co If staffreceives opposition to RRRP improvements from a majority of property owners, staff will schedule a public meeting in the area to discuss the project with the community. The Planning Commission and Board member from that district will be notified of the meeting. Staffwill assess comments in consultation with VDOT and make a recommendation on the type of paving standards for the road project to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors makes a decision (on traditional paving or RRRP) and forwards the recommendation to VDOT. If the Board of Supervisors supports the RRRP project, its support must be in the form of a resolution. RRRP = RURAL RUSTIC ROAD PROGRAM 32 ATTACHMENT IV COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List- 2004-2010 SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Planning Commission second worksession to respond to questions the Planning Commission posed to staff at November 11,2003 worksession STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs.,Tucker, Foley,Cilimberg,Benish,Wade AGENDA DATE: December 9, 2003 ACTION: X CONSENTAGENDA: ACTION: ATTACHMENTS: X REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: IN FORMATION: INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: At their November 11,2003 meeting, the Planning Commission requested staff to research several items before the Draft Six Year Secondary Road Priority List- 2004-2010 is forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission requested additional information on safety of paving unpaved roads, Reservoir Road (Rt. 702), and cost estimate for all projects on County' s Priority List. STRATEGIC PLAN: 3.1 Make the County a Safe and Healthy Community in which citizens feel secure to live, work and play. 3.3 Develop and implement policies that address the County's growth and urbanization while continuing to enhance the factors that contribute to the quality of life in the County. iDISCUSSION: The Planning Commission requested information as to whether paving a road make the road safer. Staff utilized the Transportation Research Center at the University of Virginia to research this question. Based on a study entitled, Accident Relationships of Roadway Width on Low Volume Roads, conducted by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, there is no significant difference in safety on Iow volume roads paved or unpaved roads. Specifically, the study concluded;" Accident experience does not appear to be significantly different for unpaved versus pa'ved roadway surfaces at traffic volumes of 250 vpd (vehicle per day) or less. At traffic volumes greater than this, accident rates are significantly greater for unpaved roadways than for paved roadways, all else being equal. Therefore, paving of rural roads with traffic volumes of 250 or more vpd will generally improve their safety. Accident rates increase on unpaved roads as width increases up to 30 feet, perhaps because of higher vehicle speeds on wider unpaved roads." The full study is available for review upon request. Thirty-one (31) of the forty-seven (47) unpaved road projects on the County's Draft Six Year Secondary Road Plan Priority List have vehicle trips per day of 250 or less. In addition to safety, staff also considers dust control, drainage, and erosion when adding a road to the Priority List. The majodty of the public requests are for unpaved road projects. Staff had a scoping meeting with VDOT on Rt. 702 since the November 11, 2003 worksession. Staff explained to the Planning Commission that it would be unfeasible to pave the entire length of Reservoir Road due to cost associated with upgrading this road and geometric of the road. Staff would recommend a combination of paving and spot improvements to the Board of Supervisors and VDOT. VDOT has agreed to pursue a paving project for Fontaine Avenue Extended to the extent possible and from that point (where paving terminates) to the end of the road, VDOT will conduct spot improvements at the most serious locations. These areas have not been identified at this point. VDOT anticipates they will have these locations identified in Spring 2004. The project will be listed as a spot improvement project in next year's update. Spot improvement funds can be used for paving projects. The Planning Commission also requested information on the estimated cost for all of the projects on the County's Priority List. Staff was unable to reseamh reliable cost estimates for all 119 projects. The cost would have been very speculative and unreliable. Staff and VDOT currently have cost estimates for approximately twenty-one projects at a cost of $77,000,000. At the current funding level of approximately $4,000,000 a year, it would take nineteen years (19) to complete these projects. As noted earlier, there are 119 projects on the Pdodty List and the cost estimate only has the preliminary engineering funding for Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II. Meadow Creek Parkway II estimated cost alone was last listed by VDOT at $42,000,000. VDOT has given the County an updated estimated advertisement date (EAD) for the Proffit Road project. The new date EAD is October 2012. The previous EAD was June 2008. The EAD was moved due to the cost increase for the Jarman Gap Road project. Staff has not received an updated Secondary Construction Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Albemarle County Six Year Secondary Road Priority List. Staff will forward any comments or recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for their January 2004 worksession. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING MEMORANDUM. TO: Mark B. Graham, PE, Dir~or of Engine~4ng FROM: Stephen Bowler and David Hirschman, Water Resources Staff DATE: 22 De~mber 2003 SUBJECT: Request for letter indicating that Albemarle docs not oppose the introduction of state legislation enabling the possible future creation of a Rivanna River Basin Commission The Water Resources Staff supports efforts for the General Assembly to enable a Rivanna River Basin Commission. Should the legislation pass, staff will carry out further research to help the Board decide whether, or under what terms, to join such a Commission when it is invited to do so. Area water experts recognize the need for regional cooperation and better data for water msouree planning. As the first principle in tho Water Resources section of Chapter 2 (Natural Resource and Cultural Assets) states," Water resources do not follow jurisdictional boundaries. Albemarle County is connected hydrologically (through surface water and groundwater) to thc City of Charlottesville, Greene County, Fluvanna County, Louisa County, Orange County, and the mst of the Chesapeake Bay watershed." Most directly, Albemarle and Charlottesville rely on water flowing from Greene County and Fluvanna County depends on water from the upstream municipalities. Currently we have few tools for understanding cross- jurisdictional effects or cumulative impacts. A model for addressing this need lies just next door in the form of the Rappahannock River Basin Commission, a non-regulatory, state-enabled, watershed scale body for coordination and study of a shared water msouree. The Rappahannock Commission has carded out a handful of important studies largely using external grant funding or state funds. Supporting, or at least stating a lack of opposition to, the legislation seems m accord with the County's interest and policy. Objective 2.2.1 of the County's Strategic Plan involves an "integrated water resources plan." A CommLqsion would help with in, grating both topically (e.g. groundwater and surface water or water quality and quantity) and geographically (acroSs jurisdictions of the Rivanna watershed). Chapter Two of the Comprehensive Plan commits the County to "Continue to support Chesapeake Bay protection initiatives." Watershed planning by %..local governments, community groups, and watershed organizations..." is a major strategy of the Chesapeake 2000 agreement signed by the governors of Virginia and other Bay states. A Commission would be an appropriate follow-up to the Rivanna Basin Ronndtable, which the County actively participated in through the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. A Commission could serve the Ronndtahle's stated goals of river corridor planning, developing a comprehensive Rivanna River database, coordinating data collection and monitoring under one umbrella, promoting design practice to protect the River, and expanding River stewardship. Allowing the discussion of a Rivauna River Basin Commission to proceed appears to be in accord with the County's Strategic Initiative, Comprehensive Plan, and prior water resource efforts. MEMORANDUM To: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors From: Ridge Schuyler, Director of the Piedmont Program, The Nature Conservancy Date: 12/19/03 Re: Rivanna River Basin Commission Legislation The purpose of the (brief) presentation I will make before you on January 7, 2004 is to request a letter of support for state legislation that will enable the creation of a Rivanna River Basin Commission. Senator Creigh Deeds proposes introducing the measure during the 2004 session of Virginia's General Assembly. The letters from the localities in the watershed will demonstrate that they are aware of the legislation and that they do not oppose its passage. Please note that a locality's support for the legislation does not commit the locality to join the Commission--the decision about whether to join the Commission will come at a later date after the legislation is enacted and the Commission enabled. The attachments include the following: · Description and background of proposed legislation. · Rivanna River Basin Commission's support of Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan. · Copy of proposed legislation. · Sample letter of support. 22-12-05A09:05 RCVD Summary of Proposed Legislation Creating the Rivanna River Basin Commission January 7, 2004 In 1998, the Rivanna River Basin Roundtable issued a State of the Basin Report which originated the concept of a river basin commission for the Rivanna watershed. The following recommendations, developed by the community, are quoted from the Report: · Develop a Corridor Plan to guide decision-making related to preservation and use of the Rivarma River. · Develop a comprehensive, systematic and coordinated database of all information related to the Rivarma River. · Establish a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary, interagency data collection and monitoring program, which brings together all interested parties under one umbrella, and names the responsible lead group charged with oversight and stewardship of the Rivarma River and its Basin. · Implement design practices that promote, preserve and protect the Rivanna River. · Expand stewardship of the Rivarma River. The enabling legislation being proposed by Senator Creigh Deeds is designed to implement those recommendations. The following are highlights of the proposed legislation: 1) The legislation will enable the creation of the Commission. The Commission will only come into existence, however, when five of the seven localities within the Rivanna watershed (Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, Nelson and Orange counties and the City of Charlottesville) agree to join by passing a resolution to that effect. Participation in the Commission by the localities is strictly voluntary. 2) The heart of the legislation is §62.1-69.50, establishing the powers and duties of the.commission. The Commission's first duty is to develop a watershed management plan "to maintain flow conditions to protect in-stream beneficial uses and public water supplies for human consumption." This language is taken from §62.1-11, setting forth the Commonwealth's policy regarding its water resources. 3) The Commission will also 'hmdertake studies and prepare, publish and disseminate information." Since the.commission itself will not have regulatory authority, this duty provides much of its usefulness to the localities within the watershed. The Commission is to have a professional staff of one to three people. In addition to helping the localities put together a watershed management plan, the Commission's staff could issue reports to help guide the localities in addressing the increasingly critical and complicated water-related issues that come before them. 4) In order to issue such reports, baseline data is required. To aid in the creation of such data, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has already committed $50,000 toward the construction of a computer hydrologic model of the watershed. Such a model will assist in the understanding of how this aquatic system works. TNC is willing to commit additional resources for the gathering of remote sensing data to determine the current level of impervious surface in the watershed. Such data would be mined over to the Commission, with the idea that it is the kind of data the staff will require for the production of relevant reports, and ultimately generate on its own. 5) The legislation allows each locality, and the state, to provide funding. It is the Nature Conservancy's expectation, however, that private funds will be required to endow the Commission, allowing it operate without public funds (assuming that if it cost anything, the localities would not be interested in participating). The Nature Conservancy is committed to trying to fund that endowment prior to returning to the localities to request that they join the Commission. 6) A further benefit of the commission, not expressed in the legislation, may be the Commission's ability to help the localities comply with regulations that may be issued by the state requiting every locality to have a water supply plan. It is anticipated the Commission's staff would be able to draft a plan to satisfy such state requirements, removing that burden from the individual localities. 7) The Commission would be comprised of 21 members: a. Two members of the governing bodies of each of the four localities with major land area in the Rivanna watershed (the counties of Albemarle, Greene and Fluvanna, and the City of Charlottesville). b. One member of the governing bodies of each of the three localities with minimal land area in the Rivanna watershed (Louisa, Nelson and Orange). c. One member of each of the Soil & Water Conservation Districts in the Rivanna watershed (Culpeper and Thomas Jefferson SWCD). d. One private citizen from each of the four localities with major land area in the Rivarma watershed, chosen by the local governing body from recommendations made by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. e. One member from the State Senate. f. Three members from the House of Delegates. Conclusion: Having the imprimatur of the state will give a Rivarma River Basin Commission the credibility that so many in the watershed have worked to establish. The Commission can help the seven local jurisdictions within the watershed coordinate watershed management, provide a permanent home for watershed related data that has been and will be collected, and provide a rallying point for the many groups who are working together within the.watershed. Rivanna River Basin Commission and Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan January 7, 2004 A significant portion of Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan is dedicated to the discussion of water-related issues - 58 pages in fact. While each of the goals, objectives, and strategies within this section are relevant to the work of the Rivanna River Basin Commission, the most relevant is the following portion under the heading of"Rivanna River Basin Project": Rivanna River Basin Project The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission (TJPDC) sponsored the Rivarma River Basin Project, including a citizens' Rivanna Roundtable, basin land cover analysis and citizen monitoring (in conjunction with the Environmental Education Center). The project has culminated in a series of recommendations for the Rivanna River basin, a report that outlines the current state of the basin, and desired future conditions for the basin. The Rivarma River Basin Roundtable final report contains over seventy recommendations. The recommendations are grouped under five major headings: (1) Develop a Corridor Plan; (2) Establish a knowledge base; (3) Establish a resource organization; (4) Develop community design practices; and (5) Expand stewardship. Plans are underway to continue the citizen roundtable in some format and to continue the strong foundation of citizen monitoring that was established during the year-long project (October '96 through December '97). The Rivanna River is a designated state Scenic River from the Woolen Mills Dam (at the Moore's Creek confluence) to the confluence with the James River in Fluvanna County. Strategy: Review and implement recommendations of the Rivanna River basin project. Strategy: Provide assistance to the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and the Environmental Education Center to continue citizen monitoring efforts in the Rivanna Basin. One goal of the proposed legislation to enable a state-chartered Commission is to continue the work started and implement recommendations contained within the Rivarma River Basin Roundtable's 1998 State of the Basin Report. The Commission is to be an organization in which localities within the watershed may voluntarily participate in order to cooperatively address, and fred feasible, sustainable solutions to the numerous, increasingly critical water related issues facing our region. Albemarle County was a well-represented and active participant of the Roundtable, and has already implemented several recommendations found in the Roundtable's Report, such as supporting volunteer driven water quality monitoring and incorporating watershed planning into local zoning/land use plans. Legislation enabling the creation of a state-chartered Rivanna River Basin Commission is a vital next step in furthering the important work begun by the Roundtable. Albemarle County has the largest percentage of the Rivanna River watershed within its jurisdiction (64.3%), and the Rivarma watershed makes up 67.9% of the County's area. Given these facts, Albemarle County maintains a unique and leading role in the regional watershed community. Support for the creation of a Rivarma River Basin will build on Albemarle County's reputation as a leader in this area. It is important to note that such written support of this legislation WILL NOT, in any way indicate Albemarle County's desire to participate in the Commission, nor will it indicate the commitment of any financial support for such a Commission from Albemarle County. 03 - 2438418 12/19/2003 3:11 PM Jeffrey S. Gore SENATE BILL NO. HOUSE BILL NO. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Title 62.1 a chapter numbered 5.6, consisting of sections numbered 62.1-69.45 through 62.1-69.54, relating to the Rivanna River Basin Commission; report. Be it enacted'by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding in Title 62.t a chapter numbered 5.6, consisting of sections numbered 62.1-69.45 through 62.1-69.54, as follows: CHAPTER 5.6. RIVANNA RIVER BASIN COMMISSION. §62.1-69.45. Definitions. As used in this chapter, unless the context requires a different meaning: "Rivanna River Basin" means that land area designated as the Rivanna River Basin by the State Water Control Board pursuant to § 62.1-44.38 and which is also found in the 15th, 17th, 24th and 25th state Senatorial Districts or the 25th, 57th, 58th and 59th House of Delegates Districts, as those districts exist on January 1, 2002. § 62.1-69.46. The Rivanna River Basin Commission; establishment; purpose. The Rivanna River Basin Commission (the "Commission") shall be established as an independent Commission in the executive branch of state government upon passage by two- thirds majority vote among the localities located in the Rivanna River Basin, which include the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvar~na, Greene, Louisa, Orange and Nelson, and the City of Charlottesville. The resolution shall be to commit the locality to participate in the Commission as described in this chapter, and shall contain the following language: "The governing body of this jurisdiction hereby agrees to become a member of and participate in the Rivanna River Basin Commission as described in Chapter 5.6 of Title 62.1 (§ 62.1-69.45 et seq.) of the Code of Virginia." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 03 - 2438418 12/19/03 3:11 PM Jeffrey S. Gore The purpose of the Commission shall be to provide guidance for the stewardship and enhancement of the water and natural resources of the Rivanna River Basin. The Commission shall be a forum in which local governments and citizens can discuss issues affecting the Basin's water quality and quantity and other natural resources. Through promoting communication, coordination and education, and 'by suggesting appropriate solutions to identified problems, the Commission shall promote activities by local, state, and federal governments, and by individuals, that foster resource stewardship'for the environmental and economic health of the Basin. § 62.1-69.47. Membership; terms; vacancies; chairman and vice chairman; quorum; meetings; voting. The Commission shall consist of 21 members that includes 4 legislative ex officio members, 11 members from local governing bodies, 2 members from the Soil and Water Conservation Districts and 4 citizen-at-large members. Members shall be appointed as follows: I member of the Senate whose district includes a portion of the Rivanna River Basin to serve as a non-voting ex officio member, and to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections; 3 members of the House of Delegates whose districts include a portion of the Rivanna River Basin to serve as non-voting ex officio members, and to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Delegates in accordance with the principles of proportional representation contained in the Rules of the House of Delegates; 11 members from the elected governing bodies of the localities found wholly or partially within the Rivanna River Basin to be appointed by each governing body as follows: 2 members each from the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna and Greene, and the City of Charlottesville, and I member each from the Counties of Louisa, Nelson and Orange. Each local governing body shall select its representative and an alternate in such manner as it decides; 2 members from the Soil and Water Conservation Districts found wholly or partially within the Rivanna River Basin to be appointed by each District as follows: 1 member from the Culpeper Soil and Water Conservation .District and 1 member from the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water ConServation 2 03 - 2438418 12/19/03 3:11 PM Jeffrey S. Gore 1 District. The representative and an alternate shall be selected from among the elected 2 members of each Soil and Water Conservation District in a manner agreed upon by.such 3 District; 4 citizens-at-large to be appointed by the local governing bodies of each jurisdiction 4 found wholly or substantially within the Rivanna River Basin and based upon 5 recommendations submitted by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission as § follows: 1 citizen-at-large each from the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna and Greene, and the 7 City of Charlottesville. Each person recommended by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District 8 and appointed by a Iocatity shall be a citizen who demonstrates interest, experience or 9 expertise in water-related Basin issues; Nonlegislative citizen members of the Commission 10 shall be citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 11 Members of the Commission who are-elected officials, including legislative ex officio 12 members, members from local governing bodies and members from soil and water 13 conservation districts, shall serve terms that are coincident with their terms of office and at the 14 minimum I year in length. Initial appointments of the 4 citizen-at-large members shall be 15 staggered as follows: 2 members for a term of 2 years; and 2 members rfor a term 4 years. 16 Thereafter, nonlegistative citizen members shall be appointed for a term of 4 years. 17 Appointments to fill vacancies, other than by expiration of a term, shall be for the unexpired 18 terms. All members may be reappointed. However, no Senate member shall serve more than 19 2 consecutive 4-year terms, no House member shall serve more than 4 consecutive 2-year 20 terms, and no nontegislative citizen member shall serve more than 2 consecutive 4-year terms. 21 The remainder of any term to which a member is appointed to fill a vacancy sha~l not constitute 22 a term in determining the member's eligibility for reappointment. Vacancies shall be filled in 23 the same manner as the odginal appointments. 24 The Commission shall elect a chairman and vice chairman from among its membership. 25 A majodty of the voting members shall constitute a quorum. The Commission shall meet at 26 least 4 times each year. The meetings of the Commission shall be held at the call-of the 27 chairman' or whenever the majority of the voting members so. request. 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 03 - 2438418 12/19/03 3:11 PM Jeffrey S. Gore Each voting member of the Commission shall have an equal vote. § 62.1-69.48. Compensation; expenses. Legislative members of the Commission shall receive such compensation as provided in § 30-19.12, and nonlegislative citizen members shall receive such compensation for the performance of their duties as provided in § 2.2-2813. All members shall be reimbursed for reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties as provided in §§ 2.2-2813 and 2.2-2825. § 62..1-69.49. Funding. A. The Commission shall annually adopt a budget, which shall include the Commission's estimated expenses. Beginning in the Fiscal Year 2006, the Commission may seek funding from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth's contribution, if any, shall be through the normal budget appropriations process. The Commission's elected local government members shall determine a process for distribution of costs among the local government members, which shall be based on each judsdiction's proportional share of the population within the Rivanna River Basin, unless the elected local government members choose otherwise. B. The Commission shatt annually designate a fiscal agent. C. The accounts and records of the Commission showing the receipt and disbursement of funds from whatever source derived shall be in such form as the Auditor of Public Accounts prescribes, provided that such accounts shall correspond as hearty as possible to the accounts and records for such matters maintained by similar enterprises. The accounts and records of the Commission shall be subject to an annual audit by the Auditor of Public Accounts or his legal representative, and the costs of such audit shall be borne by the Commission. The. results of the audits shall be delivered to the chief elected officer in each of the Commission's member jurisdictions, the members of the House of Delegates and the Senate who serve on the Commission, the chairmen of the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate 4 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 03 - 2438418 12119103 3:11 PM Finance Committee, and the Secretary of Natural Resources. year shalt be the same as the Commonwealth% Jeffrey S. Gore The Commission's first fiscal § 62.1-69.50. Powers and duties of the Rivanna River Basin Commission. The Rivanna River Basin Commission shall have the following powers and duties: 1. Develop a plan to promote coordination of water management within the Basin to maintain flow conditions to protect instream beneficial uses and public water supplies for human consumption; 2. Provide guidance and make recommendations to local, state and federal legislative and administrative bodies, and to others as it deems necessary and appropriate, regarding the use, stewardship, and enhancement of the Basin's water and other natural resources; 3. Undertake studies and prepace, publish and disseminate information in reports and in other forms related to the water and natural resources of the Basin and to further its purposes and mission, including but not limited to studies to determine the flow conditions necessary to protect instream beneficial uses and public water sup¢ies for human consumption; 4. Enter into contracts and execute all instruments necessary or appropriate; 5. Perform any lawful acts necessary or appropriate; 6. Establish a nonprofit corporation as an instrumentality of the Commonwealth to assist in the details of administering its affairs and in raising funds; 7. Seek, apply for, accept and expend gifts, grants and donations, services and other aids,, from public or private sources. Other than those from member jurisdictions and those appropriated by the General Assembly, funds may be accepted by the Commission only after an affirmative vote by the Commission or by fo[lowing such other procedure as may be established by the Commission for the conduct of its business; 8. Establish balanced advisory committees that may include representation from agricultural, environmental, resource-based, industrial, recreational, ripadan landowner, deveJopment, educational and other interests as it deems necessary and appropriate; and 5 03 - 2438418 12/19/03 3:11 PM Jeffrey S. Gore 1 9. Develop rules and procedures for the conduct of its business as necessary to carry 2 out its purpose and mission, including but not limited to, selecting a chair and vice chairs, 3 rotating chairmanships, calling meetings and estabiishincj voting procedures. Rules and 4 procedures developed pursuant to this subdivision shall be effective upon an affirmative vote 5 by a majority of the Commission members. 6 § 62.1-69.51. Staffing and support. 7' The tocal governing bodies, Soil and Water Conservation Districts and Planning District 8 Commissions found who!ly or partially in the Rivanna River Basin may provide staff support to 9 the Commission as the localities determine appropriate.. Additional staff support may be hired 10 or contracted for by the Commission through funds raised by or provided to it. The 11 Commission is authorized to determine the duties of such staff and fix staff compensation 12 within available resources~ 13 All agencies of the Commonwealth shall cooperate with the Commission and, upon 14 request, shall assist-the Commission in fulfilling its purpose and mission. The Secretary of 15 Natural Resources or his designee shall act as the chief liaison between the executive 16 administrative agencies and the Commission. 17 § 62,1-69.52. Chairman's executive summary of activity'and work of the Commission. 18 The chairman shall submit to the Governor and the General Assembly an annual 19 executive summary of the interim activity and work of the Commission no later than the first 20 day of each regular session of the General Assembly. The executive summary shall be 21 submitted as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for 22 the processing of legislative documents and reports and shall be posted on the General 23 Assembty's website. 24 § 62.1-69.53, Withdrawal; dissolution. 25 A. A locality may withdraw from the Commission I year after providing written notice to 26 the Commission of its intent to do so. 27 B. The Commission may dissolve itself upon a two-thirds vote of all members. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 03 - 2438418 12/19/03 3:11 PM Jeffrey S. Gore C. The Commission may be dissolved by repeal or expiration of this chapter. D. The Commission shall be dissolved if the membership of the Commission falls below two-thirds of those eli.gible. E. Upon the Commission's .dissolution, all funds and assets of the Commission, incfuding funds received from private sources, shall be divided and returned on a pro rata basis. The Commonwealth's share of the funds and assets shall be transferred to the Office of the Secretary of Natura~ Resources for appropriate distribution, § 62ol-69.54. Sunset. This chapter shall expire on (3 years from date of creation, if the entity is advisory or its primary mission is to conduct studies). Sample Letter of Support for Rivanna River Basin Commission Legislation January 7, 2004 January 7, 2004 Mr. Ridge Schuyler, Director The Nature Conservancy of Virginia 490 Westfield Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 Re: Introduction of Rivanna River Basin Commission Legislation Dear Mr. Schuyler, This letter is to inform you that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors supports legislation to enable the creation of the Rivanna River Basin Commission. It is understood that such legislation will be introduced by Senator Creigh Deeds in the 2004 session of Virginia's General Assembly. Sincerely, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Long Range Strategic Budgeting SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Proposed Strategic Budgeting Process and Discussion of Requested Strategic Initiatives STAFF CONTACT(S): Mr. Tucker, Ms. White AGENDA DATE: January 7, 2004 ACTION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ~~ / BACKGROUND: At the Board's September Strategic Planning retreat, the Board discussed the importance of aligning long-term financial planning with the County's Strategic Plan and requested that staff come back to the Board with a proposed plan. At this January 7th work session, the following three components of that plan will be brought forward for the Board's review and input: 1 ) a proposed Strategic Budgeting Process; 2) an interim status report on the FY 05 County operations budget currently under development; 3) a review of the FY05 requested Strategic Initiatives from County departments. Anticipated outcomes from this work session are: · an understanding of how the operating and capital budgets will be aligned with the County's strategic plan under the proposed strategic budgeting process; · an understanding of how FY05 anticipated revenues will be allocated to committed costs and strategic initiative priorities; · an opportunity to provide input on the most critical or least critical strategic initiatives; · an opportunity to ask questions and request additional information on any of the requested strategic initiatives. STRATEGIC PLAN: 4. Serve the Public Efficiently and Effectively DISCUSSION: The proposed Strategic Budgeting Process that you see mapped on Attachment A attempts to show four separate processes, i.e. the strategic plan, the operating budget, the capital improvement budget and the business plan, and how they are linked to each other at vadous points or dates throughout the fiscal year calendar. You will see that the strategic plan begins in September as every 3rd year the Board of Supervisors develops a new strategic plan. In the intervening years, the September Board Retreat provides an opportunity for the Board to review the plan's progress and to update it based on new information and data, i.e., "Hot Topics". Both the operating and the capital improvement budgeting processes remain essentially the same along the annual continuum, the most important change, however, being the addition of a five-year financial forecast. A financial forecast model is currently under development by our financial advisors, Daven port and Company, and should be ready to use in the FY06 budget process. This forecast model, which will include projected revenues and expenditures from both the capital and operating budgets, is a critical component of linking long term resource allocation to approved strategic directions. AG ENDA TITLE: AGENDA DATE: Page 2 of 2 Long Range Strategic Budgeting January 7, 2004 The Business Plan is the fourth process on the map and the second new critical piece that links the strategic plan to both the operating and capital budgets. The Business Plan puts wheels under the strategic plan, because as departments begin to analyze their own operations to determine how they can implement the board's strategic goals, the Business Plan puts forth those projects that will be undertaken in the next fiscal year to address the Board priorities and move toward making the vis~on a reality. Departments and community agencies will develop strategic initiatives in response to the Board's strategic plan priorities and those that can be implemented in the next fiscal year will be incorporated into the Business Plan. These approved strategic initiatives in turn will be incorporated into each department or agency's annual operating budget in the budget document. Future business plans will also include measurable outcomes that are to be achieved, as wel as strateg ic initiatives that are already underway. The strategic initiatives that are developed around the Board's four priority areas will be reviewed bythe County Executive's Office and the Leadership Council and also by the Board at January and February work sessions. Only strategic initiatives that can be undertaken or have funding in the next fiscal year will be incorporated into the final Business Plan. The annual Business Plan will include both operating and capital funded initiatives. The Strategic Initiatives (Attachment B & C) have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for funding consideration in the FY05 budget and are focused on achieving the Board's strategic priorities as set out in the County's strategic plan. All the initiatives h ave been reviewed very generally by the Leadership Council, but at this point in the process have not been thoroughly analyzed by either OMB or the County Executive's Office for critical need, data justification, implementation feasibility, retum on investment, funding ability, one-time vs. on-going costs, etc. Also, these initiatives do not include any requests from community agencies, which might also be aligned with the achievement of the Board's four Strategic Directions. The requested initiatives are arranged on Attachment B first according to the Strategic Directions and Goals they support and second, by the submitting department. The summaries themselves (Attachment C) are arranged in this same order. We recognize that these strategic initiative requests have been summarized ever so briefly and may not include all the information you may want to know or need to know to have an opinion on a specific request. However, we decided to bring them all forward at this time to give the Board a general idea of the breadth of the requests, as well as to give the Board an opportunity to ask questions and/or request additional information on any of the requested initiatives. At this point in the strategic budgeting process, we are not asking the Board to set priorities or to determine which strategic initiatives should receive funding or which ones should not receive funding. What we do want to know from the Board at this first Strategic Budgeting work session is: 1 ) Are there any strategic initiative requests that stand out to you as critical to the Strategic Plan identified priorities; 2) Are there any strategic initiatives th at you feel are not critical to the strategic plan and therefore, would not be a high funding priority; 3) Are there any questions or concerns on any of the requested initiatives that need to be researched or analyzed by OMB prior to any subsequent review by the Board. RECOMMENDATION: At the conclusion of the work session, staff requests Board consensus on the proposed Strategic Budgeting Process and comments and/or questions on the requested Strategic Initiatives. 03.167 , ! I r~ z STRATEGIC STRATEGIC DIRECTION DIRECTION & GOALS Protect:the=' County's 2:.1 Nat~l;.S~'ic:an'd ..". '.2d'.::....'. df' Lif~ for ~11 citizens 3.1 '3.1 3.~ 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.1. 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3;3 FY04-05 STRATEGIC INITIATIVES ALBEMARLE COUNTY REQUESTED STRATEGIC INITIATIVE DEPT FY04-05 PRIORITY DEPARTMENT REQUEST NET CO. COST Zoning .Ordinance .Planner SeriiO~;;z~ri.ipg. Inspeqt0r' ':' :.':: "C'ivil.'i~i:i:g'i'h'~e~;ili'::."..:'"":'.:.: ".' !':i',,'"'. '"" -." Unsafe Housing Demolition EMS Instructor 1 Additional Fire/Rescue Positions - Northern Stations 2 Volunteer Recruitment & Retention Enhancement 4 Scottsville Fire/Rescue Positions 5 Earlysville Fire/Rescue Positions 8 Contract Services Training 9 Tools'& Equipment 12 Books & Subscriptions 13 Mobile Data Computer Coord. 2 Athletic Field Maintenance Enhancement 1 Inmate Community Workforce 2 Additional Police Officers 1 Evidence Property Clerk 3 Family Support Program 1 Child Pi'etective Services Investigator 2 Mental Health-Substance Abuse Worker 3 Companion Sefvic&s 7 Planner- Neighborhood Model Implementation 5 Charlottesville Transit Service - 5th Street Extended 8 Charlottesville Transit Service - Mill Creek 9 Charlottesville Transit Service - Wal-Mart 10 · Charlottesville.Transit Service - Pantops 11 FIRE/RESCUE $102,117 $102,117 FIRE/RESCUE $318,314 $318',314 FIR.E/RESCUE $79,000' '$79,000 FIR. E/RESQUE $331,060 $331,060 FIRE/RESCUE $1.68,386 $168;386 FIRE/RESCUE $30,000'. $30,000 FIRE/RESCUE $40,000 $40,000 FIRE/RESCUE $4,000 $4;000 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY' $65,363 $65~363 PARKS'AND 'RECREATION S79,981 $79,981 PARKS'AND F~ECREATION $90,729 $90,729 POLICE $321.,401 $205,401 POLICE $34,026 $34',026 S.S. = FAMILY SUPPORT $359,000 $359,000 SOCIAL SERVICES $53,530 $22,~04: SOCIAL .sERVicEs $52,981 $22;076 SOCIAL SERVICES $15,000 $15,000' COMMUNITY DEVEIJOPMENT $66,4'03 $66,403 COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT $205,636 $205,636 COMMUNITY' DEVELOPMENT $~ 32,862 $1.32,8~2 COMMUNIT~'DE~/ELOPMENT $51,733 $51 ;733 MMUNjTY DE~/ELOPMENT $58,788 $58;788 TOTAL $4,237,658 $3,929,598 12/22/2003 11:40 AM A'FFACHMENT B FY04-05 STRATEGIC INITIATIVES ATTACHMENT C Community Development Priority 3 Zoning Ordinance Planner Lead Department: · Community Development Operational Expenditures: $53,880 A Planner level position is requested to provide necessary staffing to meet legal mandates for administering the Zoning Ordinance. This position will allow the Community Development department to better meet our schedules related to Zoning proffers and Zoning Text Amendments. The work items that the Planner position would assume are now handled by the Zoning Administrator, Deputy and Manager of Zoning Administration - they are limiting and in some instances, prevent staff from devoting necessary time to proffer reviews, zoning text amendments and the implementation of Board policies. This work is currently being completed with significant overtime and with delays and missed deadlines. Over the past 5 years, the Board has increased Planning staff by 57% and Engineering staff by 27% and Zoning staff by less than 12%. We are simply Protection of Resources unable to keep pace with the workload, includin g the new initiatives undertaken by Planning and Engineering. In 2002, the number of zoning clearances increased 82% over the number in 1999. The number of home occupations increased 45% over 1999 and the numbers of violations increased 145%, for the same time period. It is im possible to absorb these increases with existing staffing without lowering the quality of work and customer service while making mistakes, or by not doing or delaying other work. Zoning administrator determinations become final and have the '?orce of law" 60 days after they are given. These determinations include approvals of the various zoning permits and applications. When these Zoning Administrator decisions are made without a full review and consideration of the facts, the law and the impact - errors result. These errors may or may not result in liabilities (legal or otherwise) for the County. Community Development Priority 7 Sehior Zoning Inspector Lead Departmenh Community Development Operational Expenditures: $71,635 An advanced level Zoning Inspector position is requested to meet legal mandates not currently being fully met. The new position will reduce the current significant zoning enforcement workload on the Zoning Administrator and Deputy, thereby freeing their time to focus on review of zoning proffers, implementing the neighborhood model, the Rural Areas policy and text amendments necessary to carry out Board policy. in 2002, the number of zoning clearances increased 82% over the numberin 1999. The number of home occupations increased 45% over 1999 and the numbers of violations increased 145%, for the same time period. This position will provide advancement to Zoning Inspectors, contributing to the CountyfS goal of retention of qualified staff. Not funding this enhancement will clearly continue to negatively impact basic services. Zoning will not meet all legal mandates. This work is currently being completed only with significant overtime and with delays and missed deadlines. Zoning has maximized its current manpower and can no longer meet its responsibilities. Community Development Priority 4 Civil Engineer II Lead Department: Community Development Operational Expenditures: $68,657 This request is for the creation of a Civil Engineer II position in the Community Development department. This full-time position is essential to improve overall departmental effectiveness. The funding previously allocated for this position had to be used to fund the Watershed Manager position, which had been funded by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. At that time, the County's strategic goal of protecting and preserving natural resources led us to the decision to continue funding this position rather than accept a reduction m protection of natural resources. Protection of Resources During this last year, the number and corn plexity of development plans requiring detailed engineering review has increased. Applicants are currently experiencing delays in review of plans, which could delay the start of projects and adversely affect business owners. Additionally, staff is more likely to make errors with the current workload. That can result in significant and unanticipated cost increases to building costs. In several instances, the County Executive's Office and Board members have received complaints about the time it was taking to complete reviews. We anticipate that the workload for our detailed review function will increase over the coming years, and this new position will restore the number of engineers to the same level as a year ago. This will allow the department to provide services that meet the timelines that have previously been given to the community. Quality of Life Community Development Priority 6 Unsafe Housing Demolition Lead Department: Community Development Operational Expenditures: $40,000 The Department requests that the County take corrective action regarding unsafe abandoned structures. The safety of the citizens of the County will be enhanced as abandoned structures that are dilapidated, failing structurally and posing health risks due to such conditions will be removed. Unsafe, abandoned structures, as determined by the Building Official, will be demolished and removed on citizen corn plaints. The County Code (Section 5- 302) allows the County to recover these costs. However, based on similar zoning actions, it is anticipated that such recovery will take several years, per case. Eventually, with the approval of the requested "seed money", this program should be self-sustaining. Fire & Rescue Priority 1 EMS Instructor Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operating Expenditures: $102,117 The Fire/Rescue Training Division requests the addition of one FTE to its staff in order to meet EMS regulations set forth by the Virginia Office of EMS (OEMS). This position will be responsible for planning and implementing continuing education needed to maintain the County's status with the OEMS, overseeing an OEMS mandated Quality Assurance/Quality Improvement (QA/QI) program, and implementing a preceptor program. The number of people the training division is res ponsible for maintaining continuing education has more than doubled (12 people to 28 people). In addition, the new state mandated certification levels declare that all providers trained at the EMT- Cardiac level must transition to EMT-Intermediate prior to 2008, at the risk of losing certification. The addition of the 16 new providers only makes this task more formidable. Not funding this position will result in the inability to handle the forthcoming state- mandated changes. Currently, the Training Division is responsible for the training and continuing education for a system of over 300 volunteers, and 40 career personnel. In the near future, all Advanced Life Support (ALS) providers certified at Cardiac Tech will lose certification unless provided with an additional 70 hours of hands-on training. Fire & Rescue Priority 2 Additional Fire/Rescue Positions Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operating Expenditures: $318,314. The Department requests the addition of four Firefighter/ALS Techs and one Fire Captain for the Earlysville, Seminole Trail and Stony Point Fire Stations. Career staffing for Earlysville, Stony Point and Seminole Trail fire stations is needed to meet mandated service requirements. With additional staffing, stations will maintain a minimum of a 3 person crew on fire apparatus at all times as mandated by the current industry standard guideline. Statistics show that Stony Point was below minimum staffing 66% of the time and Eadysville FD was below minimum staffing 97% of the time, and Seminole Trail does not have adequate staffing to cover their call load 75% of the time. There have been many circumstances, including sick leave, injury on the job, vacations, etc., that has left one or two people Quality of Life working and responding to emergency calls. By providing additional personnel, all day shift personnel will move to a 48 hour work week, providing full crew coverage, Monday through Friday. In addition, this initiative would provide a Captain for the entire shift, leaving no time where Firefighters are expected to serve outside of their job responsibilities. Not funding these positions and leaving staffing as is creates liability and safety issues by sending crews on emergency calls with staffing below minimum standards. Fire & Rescue Pdority 4 Volunteer Recruitment and Retention Enhancement Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operational Expenditures: $79,000 The Department requests funds to enhance volunteer recruitment and retention programs to ensure quality fire, rescue, and emergency medical services (EMS) are provided to the Albemarle County community. The requested $79,000 will fund childcare for volunteers, establish recruit teams and recruitment training for all stations, as well as other recruitment needs including brochures, pamphlets, welcome packets, and a newspaper insert. Funding will also be used for volunteer recognition, rewards, retreats, and orientations, generally done on an annual basis. Recruiting and retaining new volunteers for the volunteer fire, rescue, and EMS stations of Albemarle County continues to be a significant challenge. Due to increased training requirements, time constraints, demand for greater professionalism and service, volunteerism continues to decline in emergency services. Without funding of the incentives identified in the Volunteer Recruitment & Retention Plan, it will be difficult - if not impossible - to recruit and retain new volunteers in our emergency services system When proper attention to manpower needs of the volunteer stations are not maintained, problems in maintaining adequate staffing levels for fire, rescue, and emergency medical services surface. The continued reduction in volunteer staff will result in increased need for paid fire, rescue, and EMS personnel. Fire & Rescue Priority 5 Scottsville Fire/Rescue Postions Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operational Expenditures: $331 ,O6O The Department requests additional career staffing of 2 Captains and 4 Firefighter/Medics at Scottsville Rescue Squad to provide around the clock coverage. The membership of this volunteer department cannot meet the demands during the daylight or weekend hours and has requested 24-hour staffing. This enhancement will provide the needed staffing to allow Scottsville Rescue to adequately respond to fire and medical emergencies and to provide appropriate levels of care, particularly at the Advanced Life Support Level. Scottsville Rescue Squad and Albemarle County recognize the standard of delivery of Basic Life Support (BLS) care in 4-6 minutes, and Advanced Life Support (ALS) care within 8 minutes of the onset of a medical emergency. At the present time, there are significant delays in even BLS care during daylight hours and on weekends. This creates a significant gap in patient care. By placing career staff in the building on 24 hour shifts, response times will be met with the highest level of care possible, thereby achieving adequate service to the community. Failure to fund this enhancement will result in the inability to meet the County's response time goals. Quality of Life Fire & Rescue Pdority 8 Earlysville Fire Rescue Positions Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operational Expenditures: $168,386 The request is for two Fire Fighter/Advanced Life Support (ALS) persons, and one Captain to Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department to staff an ambulance during the daytime hours. The positions are needed to ensure that the ambulance will be staffed twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. Currently, rescue services for the Northern 29 corridor are handled by the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue (CARS), primarily out of the Mclntire Road facility due to the delay in the construction of the Northern Fire Rescue station. Once the Northern Fire Rescue Station is opened, the career and volunteer staff will transfer and will begin to service the area out of the Northern Station. Without these positions, the department will not adequately address the emergency response and service needs of the Route 29 north corridor. The department is experiencing 15-20 minute response times to an area that is highly populated and is continuing to increase in population and traffic flow. Fire& Rescue Priority 9 Contract Training Services Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operational Expenditures: $30,000 Due to increasing training needs for emergency providers within the county, the Training Division formally requests an additional $30,000 for contract professional services. Each year, the training division utilizes professional services to assist in the delivery of training throughout the county. Increasing the contract instructor funds will allow the training division to expand our offerings Additional contractual funds will prevent the expenditure of overtime funds to meet training needs. Due to lack of personnel, and a documented need for these classes, overtime funds were spent that had not been approved. Conducting the training classes has been identified as a critical priority, and eliminating the classes is not an option. Also, new technologies require additional training in order for emergency service personnel to become proficient. The addition of funds will help staff achieve this proficiency. Fire & Rescue Priority 12 Tools and Equipment Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operational Expenditures: $40,000 This request is for funds to purchase the tools/equipment necessary to help the Fire/Rescue Department and volunteer fire stations and rescue squads meet the changing needs of emergency services. Such equipment would include additional Thermal Imagers which have been used to save hundreds of lives since they were introduced, as well as updated extrication tools for accident victims trapped in vehicles. Used equipment has been considered, but we have found it to be a minimal cost difference, not enough to offset the advantages of new equipment warranties. Fire& Rescue Priority 13 Books and Subscriptions Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operational Expenditures: $4O00 Quality of Life The Fire/Rescue training division requests to increase its budget for books and subscriptions from $6,000 to $10,000 annually. The Fire/Rescue Department provides literature and manuals for all volunteers for training classes. With the rising costs of books, and the addition of upper level management classes, the funding for books must ~ncrease. With the addition of Officer I, Instructor I, and medical certification classes (ACLS, BTLS, PALS), the current amount funded for books and subscriptions is not sufficient. The additional funds would allow for the division to continue holding these critical classes. Unless our providers have the proper training, we will not be able to continue to provide the level of service required for a safe and secure community. If this request is not funded, we will have to charge our volunteers for the books, or not hold the additional classes. Neither option is a desirable solution. Information Technology Priority 2 Mobile Data Computer Coordinator Lead Department: Information Technology Operating Expenditures: $65,363 The Information Technology Department requests to add one FTE Mob#e Data Computer System Coordinator to support the Police Department's Mobile Data initiative. The Mobile Data Computer system will add an entire infrastructure of equipment and technologies relating to public safety and mobile communications to the County's capabilities.. The Mobile Data Computer Project will allow police to better serve the public by making the officers more productive, better equipped to resolve incidents, and wil facilitate res ponse to emergency calls. If this position is not funded the administration, agreements, acquisition processes, and other public safety project management- related needs will be under- served from an Information Technology standpoint. In addition, the corn purer systems and technologies proposed for the project will strain Information Technology's abilities to adequately respond to our customer's needs in a timely fashion. Parks and Recreation Priority 1 Grounds/Facility Maintenance Worker Lead Department: Parks and Recreation Operating Expenditures: $79,981 This request is for one FTE Grounds/Facility Maintenance Worker I position and the materials necessary to supplement the work of the existing athletic field maintenance program. This request will nearly double the number of community recreation fields currently receiving a high level of routine maintenance, adding 12 new fields. The County has 90 fields available for community recreation. Currently 74 or 80% of these fields receive no routine maintenance other than mowing by the school division every 10 days or more. There is a drastic difference in the turf quality, playability and safety of fields which receive a high level of maintenance. High level routine maintenance ~s described as routine prescribed applications of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, minimum twice weekly mowing, annual over seeding, and a regular aeration schedule. Funding of this enhancement will increase the number of fields maintained in good to excellent condition from 16% to 29%. Parks and Recreation Priority 2 Inmate Community Workforce Lead Department: Parks and Recreation Operating Expenditures: $90,729 The Department request one FTE Park Foreman position, a vehicle and equipment to supervise and transport crews of inmates from the Quality of Life Charlottesville Albemarle Regional Jail to perform maintenance work in County Parks, school grounds, and other County property. It is estimated that a full year use of inmate labor would have a man hour value in excess of $100,000 each year. The County Parks and Recreation Department continues to take on more maintenance responsibilities each year with the addition of new schools, new parks, the boat launch at Howardsville, and the expanding greenway program. The recent recreation facilities needs assessment study reveals that the top priority for the county wil be the continued maintenance and upkeep of existing parks and recreation facilities. Through a pilot program this past summer, inmates have provided 1080 man-hours of labor at no cost to the County. When calculated at $8 an hour, which is the salary of a seasonal laborer, the inmates have provided work valued at $8,640.00. More importantly they have provided quality improvements which would have been neglected or would have been done at the expense of the routine maintenance of the grounds. The Inmate Community Work Force Program enhances the existing parks, improves the level of routine maintenance and helps meet the new maintenance requirements. Police Priority 1 Additional Police Officers Lead Department: Police Department Operating Expenditures: $321,401 The Albemarle County Police Department requests four additional officers to continue to move the police department towards its objective of adequate staffing for the provision of competent and timely police service. The current staffing levels for the Police Department do not meet the staffing objective of 1.5 officers per 1,000 population established in the Com prehensive Plan. This inadequate staffing hinders the department from achieving its goal of five minutes or less for response time. By not funding these needed positions, the Police Department would lose a $300,000 grant awarded recently by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services that reimburses 75% or $25,000 per year (whichever is less) of the salary and benefits expenses for each of the 4 new officers. This is a 3-year grant for four additional police officer positions at $100,000 a year. The addition of officers will not incur any reorganization costs and will generate additional revenue through fines from enforcement action. As a result of increased staffing, the Police Department will provide improved response time to calls to service, increased officer availability to work with citizens to address their concerns, increased officer- initiated problem-solving, and an improved sense of safety and well being to citizens. Without additional staffing, response time will continue to increase and a lack of available officers to assist on high priority calls will reduce police effectiveness and will jeopardize the safety of officers and the public. Police Priority 3 Evidence Pro perty Clerk Position Lead Department: Police Department. Operating Expenditures: $34,026 One FTE Evidence Property Clerk position is requested to meet the current workload demands and to anticipate the needs of growth in the Police Department. The Evidence Property Clerk would take on much of the administrative workload previously assigned to a Quality of Life sworn police officer position. This will assist the department in putting more officers on the street and working towards the goal of 1.5 officers per thousand population to make the County a safe & healthy community. Adding this position will result in the proper gathering and analysis of evidence enabling successful prosecutions. If this position is not filled there is a serious liability due to the overwhelming amount of inventory & need to closely monitor the weapons & drugs stored in the locker. Social Services Priority l(FSupport) Family Support Program Lead Department: Social Services Operational Expenditures: $359,O0O (Local Sham: $0) The Department is requesting local governmental funding required to sustain the Family Support program due to a reduction in Federal funding. Changes in eligibility criteria have resulted in a significant revenue shortfall for this program. This enhancement will allow the Department's Family Support program staff and operations to continue to operate at the current level and be able to fi//its two vacant positions, a senior/supervisory position and a case manager position. The Family Support program is based within the County's 16 elementary schools and assists children and families to engage in practices that promote school success - regular attendance, emotional an d behavioral stability, home safety and security, and access to community agencies that address problems that act as barriers to success. Without this funding, a reduction in workforce is inevitable and the family support services provided to each elementary school will be considerably reduced. Funding provided by local government as a result of this enhancement can be used to generate additional revenues by allowing the Department to pull down more federal reimbursement funds, which will result in multi-year revenue generation through recycling. The projected need for annual funding in each fiscal year is dependent upon the number of dollars the Department can claim for case management services provided by this Department and our community partner agencies. Social Service Priority 2 Child Protective Service Investigator Lead Department: Social Services Operational Department: $53,530 (Local share: $22,304) One Child Protective Service Social Worker FTE position is requested to enable the Department of Social Services to meet the "immediate response" requirement set forth in the VA statute. In July of 2003, the Children and Family Services Review (CFSR) by the Federal Government expressed that the response rate to abuse/neglect allegations is not satisfactory. In the past, Social Services had a five-day response time for cases that were for chronic neglect or Iow-risk. Under the new standard, al responses must be made the same day or within 48 hours, making immediate response times standard. This is a new federal standard, and though Albemarle County does better than many counties in this regard, all localities in Virginia failed this new standard. The increase of one FTE CPS investigator is an essential element of our Performance Improvement Plan. Three CPS investigators handled 371 new allegations FY 2002- 2003. An additional FTE would increase the capability to res pond immediately (same day up to 48 hours) to CPS complaints as they come in as required by the new standard. Failure to meet this new standard within the next two years will result in the loss of an undetermined amount of Federal funding. It would create a legal liability for the County not to comply with the new mandate to meet the "immediate response" requirement. Revenue would be generated by 80% reimbursement from Federal and State funding until Quality of ife depleted and then it would drop to a 15% reimbursement rate. Social Services Priority 3 Mental Health and Substance Abuse Worker Lead Department: Social Services Operating Expenditures: $52,981 (Local share: $22,076) The Social Services Department requests a Mental Health and Substance Abuse Worker for the purpose of providing Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services for the Temporary Assistance of Needy Families (TANF) and for the Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare (VIEW) participants. The grant from the Virginia Department of Social Services that enables the operation of this program at minimal cost is formally ending. By funding this request, we will be able to provide continued mental health and substance abuse services to existing clients and provide services to potential new clients. This position is part of a collaborative effort with Charlottesville, Albemarle County and Region Ten to provide services to TANF and VIEW participants in our community. The Mental Health and Substance Abuse (MH/SA) counselor assesses the need for base services and provides them. The ACDSS TANF staff work in a team approach with the MH/SA counselor, the Family Support worker and other child welfare staff to ensure treatment services and the customer's entry into the labor force as quickly as possible Not funding this request could create a potential liability issue when agency staff deals with potentially violent clients. Currently, when addressing these clients, staff turns to the MH/SA for assistance or back-up. AJso, not funding this enhancement would cause a significant decrease in our services to MH/SA clients. There is a potential for an 80% reimbursement on expenditures surrounding the Mental Health/Substance Abuse Worker. This revenue would be multi-year revenue. Social Services Priority 7 Companion Services Lead Department: Social Services Operating Expenditures: $15,000 The Social Services Department requests an increase in the funds for Companion Service to the elderly and disabled low income citizens of Albemarle. This home based care minimizes institutionalization of our elderly and disabled residents and has been funded at the same level since 1999, despite increasing service demands and increasing costs of care. The enhancement requested increases local funds to somewhat offset the major cutbacks that were necessary to maintain the program at current funding levels, and will allow for up to 6 more individuals to be taken off the waiting list. The increased funds provide additional in- home care and comfort services that help participating elderly citizens to continue to live out their days with dignity and a measure of independent living while providing the necessary comfort and care that many citizens can not afford on their own. Without additional funds, it can be estimated that four out of five of the individuals on the waiting list will remain at risk of continuing self-neglect if they refuse to leave their homes to enter adult homes. These are Iow-income clients and if they deteriorate more quickly and need nursing home or community based care, the high costs of Medicaid will be the burden of the community. Currently, we have 30 on the waiting list and two individuals being assessed for the waiting list. We estimate that the size of our waiting list will be equal to the size of our number of customers served if these funds are not awarded. Quality of Life Community Development Priority 5 Planner - Neighborhood Model Implementation Lead Department: Community Development Operational Expenditures: $66,4O3 The request is to fund a new Planner to work with an existing Planner and a project consultant on the development of the next Neighborhood Master Plan for the Route 29 North corridor. The new Planner would ultimately take on implementation responsibilities for a portion of the planning area once the plan is completed and adopted. The planning area encompasses four designated Development Areas covering 13.8 square miles and is estimated to have 20,800 residents (2002). By comparison, the Community of Crozet, the location for the first master planning effort, covers 4.6 square miles and has an estimated population of just over 3,000. Based on the experiences gained from the Crozet Plan and given the characteristics of the next study area, it is expected that the workload will far exceed the capabilities of one planner. Timely and effective implementation of the Neighborhood Model is this Department's highest priority project and implementation of the Neighborhood Master Plans is one of the County's highest priority Strategic Plan efforts. High expectations exist on the part of the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, general public, and development community to implement the recommendations of the model quickly and successfully. Community Development Priority 8 C'ville Transit Service - Fifth Street Extended Lead Department: Community Development Operational Expenditures: $205,636) The Department requests the expansion of transit service to Fifth Street Extended to the County Office Building -South and Southwood MHP Monday through Saturday between 6:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. This enhancement is needed to serve COB-South which will open in 2004 and will have transit dependent customers. This request was identified ~n the Transit Development Plan (TDP), a five-year plan that recommends service for each fiscal year starting in FY 2002. We are in the third year of the plan. The TDP recommended service along the Fifth Street Extended corridor in year 5 (FY 2006). This request is being accelerated due to the opening of COB-South. Staff and CTS continue to get requests from citizen to add this service. If this request is not funded, the transit-dependent population will not have public transportation access to COB -South and service and employment opportunities along this corridor and vehicular traffic along these routes will increase. Revenues wil be generated, but they will not cover the entire cost of the service. The total cost would be $205,636 for the first year because a bus will have to be purchased and an annual cost of $149,439, plus a 4% annual cost increase (labor, and the cost of goods and services) will be incurred. Community Development Priority 10 C'ville Transit Service - Wal-Mart Lead Department: Community Development Operational Expenditures: $51,733 The Department requests the expansion of transit service to Wal-Mart and Fashion Square Mall between 7:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Quatity of rife This expanded service was recommended in the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Transit Development Plan (TDP), which was completed in June 2001. Staff and CTS receive numerous requests each year from Wal-Mart shoppers and employees for night service. CTS projects a 12 month ridership of 6,500. The TDP recommended night service to Wal-Mart in FY 2003. The County did not fund this service at that time. Staff and CTS continue to get requests from citizen and employees to add this service. Community Development Priority 9 C'ville Transit Service - Mill Creek Lead Departmenh Community Development Operational Expenditures: $132,862) The Department requests a new service that will bring fixed transit service to Mill Creek area along Avon Street Extended Monday through Saturday between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. This new service would provide bus service from downtown Charlottesville to the Mill Creek area along Avon Street Extended on 30- minute headways. This service route was recommended in the Charlottesville Transit Service (CTS) Transit Development Plan (TDP), which was completed in June 2001. Staff and CTS receive numerous requests each year from residents along the Avon Street Extended corridor to start fixed transit service in this area. CTS is projecting a 12-month ridership of 20,000. There are over 1,300 existing dwellings along the Avon Street corridor (Neighborhood 4), as well as the Armory, juvenile detention center, jail, and other industrial and commercial employment areas. The service will provide transportation to transit dependent citizens and transportation for employees and citizens. It will relieve congestion on Rt. 20 and Avon Street Ext. and neighborhoods in the southern section of the City. Revenues will be generated, but they Will not cover the full cost of the service. Community Development Priority 11 C'ville Transit Service. Pantops Lead Department: Community Development Operational Expenditures: $58,788 The Department requests a transit service in Pantops Mountain Area. The expanded service would extend existing transit service to the intersection of Rt. 250 and 1-64 at ShadwelL The extended service would serve Martha Jefferson Hospital and Westminster Canterbury and also provide expanded service to Wilton Farm Apartments, a location with transit dependent residents. The service will take place Monday-Saturday between 6:30 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. This request was identified in the Transportation Development Plan (TDP), which was developed by the Charlottesville Transit Service and endorsed by Albemarle County. The TDP is a five- year plan that recommends service for each fiscal year starting in FY 2002. We are in the third year of the plan. The TDP recommended service be extended to 1-64 (Shadwell) at Rt. 250 in year 3 (FY 2004). Revenues will be generated, but they will not cover the whole cost of the service. Effective and Efficient Services Fire & Rescue Priority 6 Office Associate Position Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operational Expenditures: $37,346 The Department requests one FTE office associate to help meet the growing demands placed on office staff due to a large increase in field personnel The office associate staff provides support to all divisions within the Fire and Rescue Department. The last clerical staff position added to the de partment was July 2001. Since that time, the department has doubled in size. Most of the increase has occurred in the training and operations divisions. The two current office associates are sharing clerical duties for operations, training, recruitment, administrative and prevention divisions as well as assisting the 400+ volunteers. Fire investigations have remained steady at an average of 200 annually. Often, this clerical shortage results in the Department's inability to handle a citizen's request in a timely manner. We have historically generated revenue from our permit process and now from the environmental corn pliance program. We estimate this position will generate $11,000 in annual revenues. PoliCe Priority 2 Civilian Patrol Support Position Lead Department: Police Department Operating Expenditures: $32,037 One FTE Civilian Patrol Support Assistant position is requested to handle walk- in and telephone police reports, court services liaison duties, fingerprinting (non-criminal processes), contractual overtime program management, false alarm program management, as well as numerous other duties associated with patrol support functions. The use of civilian staff for these support duties will allow officers, who are now responsible for these tasks, to fulfill the County's goal of 1.5 officers per thousand population and make the County a safe and healthy community. Customer satisfaction would be improved due to better response time for service calls and more focus on policing the community. The new position would assist in the management of The False Alarm Tracking Program which is a constant source of revenue for the County. Revenue generated: FY01:$6,715 FY02:$15,975 FY03:$14,200 Community Development Priority 1 Records Manager Lead Department: Community Development Operational Expenditures: 67,353 This request is for the creation of a Records Manager position in the Community Development department. This position would be responsible for developing and administering a records management program for the department, management of automated systems, and/or records retention, security, maintenance, storage and disposal. This position would ensure that all relevant records needed in support of the Community Development department's legal, operational and historical requirements are maintained in corn pliance with federal, State and local regulations. The creation of a central file area to manage the records of the three departments is a large undertaking, and there is not a staff position in the Administration division that can be dedicated to this task. The need for a Records Manager was identified and recommended by the Central Development Services Central Filing Team in August 2002. The current Central 0 perations Filing Work Group continues to strongly agree Effective and Efficient Services with this recommendation and considers a Records Manager a key element in assuring the success of the central file area. If this request is not funded, we will not be able to meet the expectations of staff and the public of a more efficient operation and assure that records are maintained in accordance with State Library regulations will be an issue. Community Development Priority 2 Sign Review Position Lead Department: Community Development Operational Expenditures: $59,46O The Department requests a FTE Sign Review Position to allow the establishment of a "one-stop-shop' for sign review in Albemarle County. The Sign Reviewer will perform coordinated sign reviews and inspections for Community Development. The position is necessary to streamline the County's sign review processes, to adequately support the inspections requirements for sig ns in the County, and to facilitate a coordinated review of Zoning and ARB applications for signs. The County's sign review process has long been a source of criticism voiced by customers of the County. Both the ARB and Zoning inspections workloads continue at a heavy pace with no reduction in workload anticipated in the future. If this position is not funded, customer service will remain at an inferior level. Development review will be less than optimally streamlined and coordinated. County Executive Priority 1 Web Content Manager Lead Department: County Executive Operational Expenditures: $17,000 The County Executive Office requests the increase of the Web Content Manager position from part time to full time. The explosive growth of the website in functionality and in citizen usage has put a severe strain on the ability of a half-time person to meet the demands of keeping our government presence timely, accurate, and informative in a way that responds to the needs and expectations of our online users. The Web Content Manager hours will increase from 20 to 40 hours per week, which will enable the position to monitor, maintain, evaluate and refresh the web site, and also to evaluate customer service feedback and web statistics, offer end-user assistance and training, administer the department and site wide maintenance plans and assist with related internal and external communication strategies. If this enhancement is not funded, we will be severely limited in our ability to use the website and associated e- government initiatives to their fullest and to meet the expectations and needs of our citizens. Citizens have indicated their capacity for online services (over 80% currently use the Internet) as well as their desire to receive flexible and convenient government service. Fire& Rescue Priority 10 Public Safety Portable Radio Upgrade Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operational Expenditures: $298,064 The Department requests portable radios, cases, microphones and spare radio batteries for the Public Safety Communications System as part of the 800 MHz radio project. Original estimates for necessary portable radios were made nearly five years ago. Since that time, the fire & EMS system has grown considerably and additional radios are needed that were not included in the last estimate. Also, radio cases, microphones, and spare radio batteries were NOT includ ed as a part of the project cost. System operation is antici pared to begin in fiscal year 2005, and all radios must be replaced to ensure interoperable communications. Effective and Efficient Services Fire & Rescue Priority 11 Information Technology Maintenance Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operational Expenditures: 15,000 The Department of Fire/Rescue requests annual funding of $15,000 to provide for the maintenance and enhancement of technology in the fire and EMS stations. Currently, no budget exists to maintain the computers and equipment necessary for state and federal incident reporting and general department communications and operations. This funding will allow connection of all eight departments and all three rescue squads into the County network over a period of five to seven years, and will replace outdated hardware and software technology. An Information Technology fund will enable expanded use of our Records Management System (SUNPRO) and wil allow our stations to maintain critical incident reporting. Network access will allow the County to share the latest technology, such as team services, with Volunteer leadership. Maintaining effective communications with the Fire & EMS Chiefs is challenging, and ability to share files, inform ation, and ideas would significantly improve by connecting all stations to the County network. With this fund, our Fire/Rescue departments will continue to use antiquated equipment for communications and reporting. Departments will not be able to maintain electronic communications through e-mail and they may not be able to properly utilize our records management system. General Services Priority 4 General Services Work Order System Lead Department: General Services Operating Expenditures: $5,000 The General Services Department requests funding to create a new General Services work order system through the IT department, A new work order database is needed to integrate repairs and custodial requests with maintenance schedules, inspections, and inventory of repair and custodial used. The new work order system must incorporate new facilities such as COB South and the Monticello Fire station. Our current work order program is maxed out and cannot be enhanced by our IT personnel. It is only capable of supporting data on immediate repair needs at the County Office Building, Court Square and Social Services offices. Since being created by a review engineer in his spare time, we have increased needs for scheduling maintenance work for buildings and vehicles, inspections, and inventory of repair supplies. As a newly created office, General Services will be accepting responsibilities of future County buildings and facilities (such as storm water basins), which will necessitate more and better coordination of these activities. Human Resources Priority 2 Compensation Analyst Lead Department: Human Resources Operating Expenditures: $29,569 (Local Government cost at 25%, $7,933) Summary of Request HR requests a .5 FTE Compensation Analyst. The total funding request of.5 FTE will be offset by the current Management Analyst position that will decrease from 1.0 to .75. The Compensation An alyst will assist the Compensation and Benefits Manager with complex issues relating to compensation, such as conducting and participating in salary surveys; prepanng job descriptions and determining appropriate salary levels; conducting desk audits; overseeing the merit plan and probation. With the current staff and workload in Human Resources, these activities are not occurring in a timely manner, resulting in frustration from em ployees and managers and inequities Effective and Efficient Services existing in our em ployees' compensation. Market data must be collected and analyzed annually. Currently, there are over fifty positions that need to be analyzed. Human Resources Priority 3 Benefit Communication Plan Lead Department: Human Resources- Compensation and Benefits Operating Expenditures: $15,ooo (Local Government share at 25%, $3,750) Summary of Request Funds are requested to support Benefit Communications program to ensure employees are aware of what is available to them, change how employees view their benefits, and increase the value employees place on these benefits. Currently, communications are developed on an as- needed basis. Effective communications and streamlined enrollment processes will help employees make informed decisions and reinforce the County's commitment to our employee's health and well- being. Research and planning are necessary to inform employees of plan details and enrollment procedures in easy to understand terms. This initiative will enhance the County's ability to attract and retain high qualify staff members in an increasingly competitive labor market. An effective communication program will keep employees better informed and will clarify expectations. Information Technology Priority 1 Enterprise Agreement Lead Department: Information Technology Operating Expenditures: $142,733 The Information Technology Department requests funds to buy into an Enterprise Agreement (EA) with Microsoft. By buying into software Enterprise Agreement with Microsoft, the County would improve employee productivity. Forbes Return on Investment (ROI) calculator indicates using their software will result in a productivity gain of up to 60 hours per year per employee, The County may be able to reduce its overall costs by 10 to 15 percent by using the EA to implement technology standardization. All County government employees will be provided with a software environment allowing access to key data to create innovative solutions to work challenges. The government em ployees will find the software environment to be more supportive of their work and integrated with their daily activities. Employees will also benefit from home use at no extra cost to the County. Our current approach to software purchases has led to loss of user productivity. By not purchasing into the EA Agreement with Microsoft, the County Will continue with the status quo approach, which would cause the County to potentially lose over $100,000 over a six year period. Registrar Pdodty 1 Assistant Registrar Lead Department: Registrar Operating Expenditures: $33,428 The Registrar requests funding for an additional staff person for the Department of Voter Registration and Elections. There have been several times over the past year where our service has been truly compromised due to lack of staff coverage. Over the last 5 election cycles (20 years), Albemarle County has averaged a 12% growth in registration during a Presidential Election year. Absentee voting is normally 5 times heavier during a Presidential year than in the next highest turnout election. Need for voter outreach is increased during this time, as well. These factors, along with many others, make this request critical in FY 05. However, because registration levels continue to steadily rise and other legislative issues have increased local responsibilities, the need for this position will be sustained Effective and Efficient Services beyond the Presidential Election into future years. This is the most critical need of this department and is necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service to voters and other customers of this department. We have had to deny requests for staff to assist in local voter registration drives or to speak to organizations regarding voting and elections, due to lack of staff availability. Regularly scheduled activities periodically leave the department staffed by a single individual who must cover in- person visitors and 4 incoming phone lines. The addition of this staff position will reduce waiting times for registration, absentee voting, candidate processing and other in-office activities. The position will also free the time of senior staff to provide voter education services as required by §24.2-114, section 2. Registrar Priority 2 Voting Equipment Lead Department: Registrar Capital Expenditures: $75,OOO The Registrar requests funding to purchase voting equipment and other upgrades to fully comply with the Federal Help America Vote Act (HA VA) and with §24.2 of the Code of Virginia This request is for 4 pieces of HAVA corn pliant voting equipment for installation in precincts not qualifying for federal dollars under the Act. (Precincts established after 11/00). In addition, 10 voting machines will be needed during the upcoming year to provide legal numbers of voting machines at the polls and for one "demonstrator" machine to be available for public instruction, in accordance with §24.2-635 of the Code of Virginia. Minor ADA- and HAVA-related upgrades may be necessary to fully comply with the laws (door handles, parking signs, etc.) The request is for 2 retrogrades to the current AVC advantage voting system to provide legal compliance in the new Belfleld and Yellow Mountain precincts, two upgraded HAVA-compliant voting systems for use by absentee voters. In addition, 10 voting machines will be needed to remain compliant with §24.2-627 of the Code of Virginia, including one "demonstrator" device. The final portion of the request is to complete the remaining steps necessary to bring all polling places in Albemarle County into full compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Help America Vote Act, including appropriate signage. Compliance will provide legally-mandated opportunities for disabled voters to cast an unassisted, secret ballot in any Albemarle County precinct, to include the absentee precinct. Full compliance with the ADA will allow elderly and disabled voters equal access to the polls, as required by law. Demonstration of voting equipment will allow for shorter wait times at the polls due to the increased familiarity with the ballot and voting equipment used in the election. Registrar Priority 3 Absentee Clerk - Satellite Absentee Voting Lead Department: Registrar Operating Expenditures: $10,000 The Registrar requests funding for establishment of a secondary in-person absentee voting location for the 45-day period immediately preceding the 2004 Presidential Election. The enhancement is needed due to the extreme shortage of space for the purpose of absentee voting at the current office of the General Registrar. The enhancement would involve stationing one piece of voting equipment and a trained absentee clerk in the County Office Building during regular office hours to provide in-person absentee voting opportunities. The Presidential Election should generate close to 3000 absentee ballots. Approximately % of absentee voters vote in person. An average presidential ballot with Constitutional Amendments takes approximately 10 minutes to vote with approximately 5-8 minutes of processing before and after the ballot, making the average transaction 15-18 minutes. With -1500 voters, this will create a minimum of 375 hours of staff time, if the voters vote one at a time. By Effective and Efficient Services providing multiple locations for voting, the wait time for voting may be halved. In 2000, over 2600 absentee ballots were cast. Due to increasing numbers of voters taking advantage of absentee opportunities and growth in the registration rolls, that number is expected to climb close to 3000. Even in a smaller election, voting conditions are extremely cramped in the DMV location (as they were in our previous County Office building location). Social Services Priority 1 Interpreter Services Lead Department: Social Services Operating Expenditures: $15,O0O (Local Share: $3,000) The Social Services Department requests the Contracting of Interpreter Services to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which requires that no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin under any program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. Funding is needed for providing services to Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons through an interpreter and language services for personal interactions as well as written materials to afford meaningful access to services, free of charge. LEP persons are often excluded from programs, experience delays or denials of services, or receive care and services based on inaccurate or ncomplete information. There is a potential for an 80% reimbursement on expenditures surrounding Interpreter Services. This revenue would be a multi-year revenue. Social Service Priority 4 Customer Feedback Mechanisms Lead Department: Social Services Operating Expenditures: $55,000 (Local share: $11,000) The Social Services Department requests the establishment of customer feedback mechanisms that will allow the Department to provide effective, responsive and courteous service to our customers. These mechanisms would be in the form of focus groups, internal customer comment cards, and an external customer survey. The focus groups would concentrate on departmental processes and customer service issues and would identify where improvements could be made. The internal customer listening devices or comment cards would track data on customer satisfaction with agency performance. The external customer survey would track performance improvements in comparison with the data from the previous survey. Currently, Social Services uses comment cards for customer feedback and logs responses into a database. Periodically, a group survey of the department's customer base is conducted for more feedback. This enhancement would set a standard of completing an external standard every two years. There is a significant lack of data on agency performance, customer service issues, and community opinion regarding human services needs. In an effort to align with the County Strategic Plan, Social Services will need to implement mechanisms to obtain on-going, reliable feedback. Incorporating these types of systems into our operations would allow our agency to gauge customer needs and assist in our pursuit of excellence in customer service. By reporting expenditures to the state, the County could see potential revenues generated of up to $44,000. Social Services Priority 6 Employment Specialist - Career Center Lead Department: Social Services Operating Expenditures: $41,192 The Social Services Department requests a permanent employee to Effective and Efficient Services operate the ACDSS Career Center. In accordance with the Workforce Investment Act, the ACDSS Career Center is attempting to become a community entity aside from the Department of Social Services, requiring a dedicated full-time staff person as opposed to existing DSS staff. During the Center's 2.5 years of operation, temporary em ployees have been used as staff. With caseload growth and additional demands on our workers, it is growing increasingly more difficult to staff the center with regular full-time employees. It would be most beneficial and cost efficient and in line with the direction of the Workforce Investment Group to staff the center with a permanent worker. If this position is not funded, basic services and operations of the Career Center would be significantly impacted, including the possibility of closure. There is a potential for a 100% reimbursement on expenditures surrounding the Employment Specialist. This revenue would be multi-year revenue. Fire & Rescue Priority 7 Efficiency & Effectiveness Study Lead Department: Fire & Rescue Operational Expenditures: $100,000 The Department of Fire/Rescue requests funding for consultant services to conduct an organizational effectiveness and efficiency study of the Fire & EMS services. This 'ncludes all 7 volunteer fire stations, and all 3 volunteer EMS stations. Funding would encompass a study of a number of critical areas including Accreditation ($40,000), Management ($10,000), Staffing ($5,000), Apparatus/Equipment ($5,000), Training ($5,000), Budget and Financial Management ($10,000), Benchmarking ($5,000), and Consolidation ($20,000). A study conducted by an objective consultant will assist in planning for the future, providing a clear road map for change, and ensuring that existing and future resources are maximized. A consultant shall ultimately provide a written report recommending appropriate actions to benefit the system. The study will assist the Department, the County Executive, and the Board of Supervisors in identifying additional funding sources for the increased level of service anticipated in the next seven to ten years. Preliminary reports show that the operating budget for the County Fire/Rescue Department ~s projected to increase from approximately $2 million currently to over $8 miJlion by 2010. Preliminary reports also show the department staffing is projected to ncrease from 30 FTE's presently to over 80 FTE's by 2010. Without this consultant assistance, this request will render the County and the Department of Fire/Rescue unprepared for the significant growth and challenges forthcoming, Encompass General Services Priority 1 Custodial Support- COB South Lead Department: General Services Operating Expenditures: $63,40O The General Services Department requests the hiring of a lead custodian and a custodian to provide custodial service to the COB South facility. The COB South facility will be occupied by September 2004. There is currently no mechanism for providing custodial services to this facility. This facility has over 100,000 square feet. The University of Virgima uses a rule of thumb of between 20,000 and 25,000 square feet per custodian for office space. The Department of General Services for the State of California staffs at an average of 19,000 square feet per custodian. These values are consistent with the industry standards issued by the International Sanitary Supply Association (ISSA). We recommend 4 custodians for this facility (roughly 25,000 square feet per custodian). We will maintain 4 custOdians at COB Central (also over 100,000 square feet) and 1.75 custodian FTEs for our Court Square facilities. We have one custodial Effective and Efficient Services supervisor II. The total would add to 10.75 FTEs (4.0 + 4.0 + 1.75 + 1.0). Our current allotment is 8.75 FTEs. General Services Priority 2 Grounds Facilities Maintenance Workers Lead Department: General Services Operating Expenditures: $105,000 The General Services Department requests the hiring of two grounds facilities maintenance workers and the purchase of landscaping equipment for landscaping, grounds upkeep and stormwater facility maintenance. The scope of grounds maintenance has increased during the past several years, and Public Works must contract for these services. As the workload has increased, Public Works cannot deliver timely maintenance service given contractor's increasingly limited availability. We will procure a base level of equipment and hire two full- time employees to perform routine grounds maintenance (mowing, mulching, tree trim ming, soil amenity application). Given the existing workload of the Public Works Inspector III, this enhancement will allow for inspection/maintenance of critica Public Works facilities such as sidewalks and regional stormwater basins. Since 2001 the County has acquired three regional storm water management facilities: Mill Creek Pond, Colonial Basin, Hollymead Dam, as well as grounds maintenance of COB South. Maintenance at these sites requires additional resources regardless of in-house or contractor service delivery. Public Works currently contracts maintenance of 3 VDoT medians and twelve (12) regional storm water facilities. Moreover, in-house labor could address the growing interest in routine mowing along existing sidewalks in the urban ring of Charlottesville. VDoT and Public Works are currently developing short and long- term strategies to address this issue, including allowing County staff to perform this service. General Services Priority 3 Maintenance Mechanic Lead Department: General Services Operating Expenditures: $49,414 The General Services Department requests the hiring of a maintenance mechanic to provide support for increasing facility inventory. One additional Maintenance Mechanic is needed to supplement the ongoing maintenance of County owned facilities. The General Services division is currently operating with a Maintenance Mechanic Foreman and a Senior Maintenance Mechanic who handle facility maintenance and repairs for the County Office Building Central, County Office Building South, Court Square facilities, Monticello Fire/Rescue Station, and Millmont (Social Services). An additional Senior Maintenance Mechanic will come on line before COB South is occupied. Even still, it will become increasingly difficult to provide baseline maintenance and repairs at these facilities in a timely customer service-oriented manner. Our two current maintenance mechanics have already amassed a total of 56 hours comp time from July 1, 2003 to the present. The industry standard, published by the International Facility Management Association (IRMA), recommends 1.58 maintenance mechanics per facility sized between 50,000 and 100,000 square feet,t.. COB Central and COB South are each over 100,000 square feet square feet (gross). The Court Square facilities total approximately 29,000 square feet (gross). Human Resources Priority 1 Loss Control Manager Lead Department: Human Resources Operating Expenditures: $76,5OO (Local Government cost at 25%, $19,125) Effective and Efficient Services Summary of Request HR requests a FTE Loss Prevention Manager who will would be responsible for all safety-related activities to include crisis planning, hazardous materials management, fire prevention, and train the trainer training for line managers to this end. Safety awareness will be enhanced through the development of employee awareness, safe working practices, accident prevention, post-accident review, development, coordination and administration of employee safety and health training programs. The position will benefit all county schools, government and school employees and students by providing a safer environment. Currently, more than $454,000 is paid for workers' compensation claims ($277,000 schools and $177,000 for local government). Our cost of claims and incidents of claims have risen dramatically over the last five years, reflected in the decrease of our experience ratio from 25% to 2%. This steady decline in our experience rate is costing approximately $75,000 per year in insurance costs. RECEIVED AT E~OS MEETING Date: -----~-~-T--~ Agenda item #:~ C~erk's ~nitials:w z~-_.-~ 3 4 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 December 17, 2003 Eric Morrisette 65' Dearie Road Ruckersville. VA 22968 SP-03o75 Alan & Theresa Zick/Ashleigh Preservation Tract B Tax Map 34, Parcel 22V Dear Mr. Morrisette: The Aibemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 16, 2003, by a vote of 5:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after construction. Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy ~s within I vertical foot. 2. Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands. 3. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. The mitigation plan shall include an implementation schedule. 4. Engineering Department approval of plans and computations verifying structural adequacy of the bridge and abutments. 5. Conditions 1 through 4 must be met within four months of the approval date of this permit. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on January 7, 2004. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, Planner SC/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Jack Kelsey Virginia Land Trust Amelia McCulley Steve AIIshouse Alan & Theresa Zick Staff Contact: Planning Commission: Board of Supervisors: Scott Clark December 16, 2003 January 7, 2003 sP 03-075 ZICK-ASHLEIGH PRESERVATION TRACT APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL Request for special use permit to allow construction of a bridge in a floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3.05.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for Water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of ail types. The bridge was built prior to the current owners' purchase of the property, and it is not known whether or not it was built before adoption of the current floodplain-fill regulations. The applicants wish to ensure that the bridge is in conformity with those regulations. No new construction is planned, but some remediation may be necessary. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY The property, described as Tax Map 34 Parcel 22V, contains 100 acres, and is zoned RA Rural Areas. The proposal is located on Priddy Court, approximately 0.3 miles from the intersection of Priddy Court and Ashleigh Way Road, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2. HISTORY In 2000, a final plat was approved that created this lot as one of two preservation tracts in the Ashleigh rural-preservation development. This parcel is subject to conservation easement held by the County's Public Recreational Facilities Authority. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The property is zoned RA Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area. APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicants wish to use the bridge for access to a single-family dwelling. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of SP 03-075 with conditions. STAFF COMMENT (Special Use Permit), Staffwill address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance below: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the right to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervtsors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, This existing bridge could have erosive impacts on the streambanks that could affect downstream properties, although at a relatively small scale. Condition 3 recommended by staff regarding a mitigation plan for the use would address these impacts. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, This bridge will provide access to a single dwelling on this large parcel. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The conditions recommended below are intended to ensure that this existing bridge is safe and does not negatively impact natural resources. with the uses permitted by right in the district, No conflict with by-right uses is expected. with additional regulations provided in Section 5. 0 of this ordinance, No supplemental regulations apply. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The conditions recommended below are intended to ensure that this existing bridge is safe and does not negatively impact natural resources. Condition 4 recommended by staff regarding structural adequacy might necessitate changes to the existing bridge or abutments/foundations. A time limit is recommended in order to ensure that both streambank mitigation and structural improvements (if any are necessary) will be carded out in a timely fashion. Easement Concerns As noted above, this parcel is subject to a County-held conservation easement. Staffhas worked with the County Attorney's office and verified that approval of this bridge (which was in place before the easement was granted) would not constitute a disturbance of a scale that would violate the terms of the easement. SUMMARY This is a request to bring an existing bridge into compliance. The impacts from its construction can be addressed through a mitigation plan, and the applicants will be required to verify (and provide) structural adequacy. The County Attorney has confn-med that the work approved by this permit would not violate the terms of the conservation easement on this property. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff also recommends approval of SP 03-065 with the following conditions: 1. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the flOodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after construction. Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within 1 vertical foot. 2. Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands. 3. Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. The mitigation plan shall include an implementation schedule. 4. Engineering Department approval of plans and computations verifying structural adequacy of the bridge and abutments. 5. Conditions 1 through 4 must be met within four months of the approval date of this permit. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Site Map )ERS RD :. LN BURNT Prepared by Albemarle County Office of Geographic Data Sen/ices(GDS). Map created October 2003, Aedal Imagery © 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not ~o be construed or used as a legal descdpt/on. pRiTCHETT RIDGE WA AREA OF INTEREST TM 34 PARCEL 22V SP 03-075 A~an & Theresa Zick/Ashleigh Preservation Tract B 0 0.5 1 1.5 M/les Z 352.8 412.3 355.2 357.7 429.7 357.7 359.9 360.4 358.3 362.4 362.1 362,8 453.7 365.8 423.6 453.7 4372 484.1 475.7 352.8 476.7 478.1 372.6 ¢Oo 451.7 465.1 %S SIES LN 471.3 SP 03-075 Prepsredby*lbemade County Alan & Theresa Zick/Ashleigh PreserVation Tract O~fice of Geographic Data Services( GDS). Map createdOctober2003. Aerial Image~ ~ 2002 Commonwealth of Virginia ~ .v~ _tL?uu ~, , vv Note; The map ele~ *~ depicted are gmphic ~p~sentations and - are not ~ be con ~r used as a legal description. SP-2003-074 Karin M. Gest Private School - Request for a special use permit to allow a private school for classroom driver training in accordance with Section 20.4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private schools in the PUD Zoning District. The property, described as Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 202B, contains .245 acres, and is zoned PUD-Planned Unit Development. The proposal is located on Incarnation Drive, at the intersection of Rt. 1694 (Branchland Boulevard) and Rt. 1427 (Hillsdale Drive) in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 2. (Tarpley Gillespie) Ms. Gillispie summarized the staff report. The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow a private school to be located within the existing Branchlands Professional Center Office Building. It is a pdvate school for class reom driver training and it would have up to ten students, with an average of 8 students, and conduct classes after 4 p.m. in the evening with the o~- sional Saturday activity as well. The property is zoned PUD and it is part of the odginal Branchlands PUD. There was a site plan completed for this new building in 1999. There were 97 parking spaces required for the site plan. The site provides 105 parking spaces. In our review one of the things they needed to do was to determine the number of parking spaces that would be required. The Zoning Ordinance gives the authority to make that determination to the Zoning Administrator who requested a parking study of the applicant. The applicant provided the parking plan, which is in the packet. The parking plan is also posted on the board. She stated that also provided was some stipulations about their business such as the hours and the number of students. The parking plan shows the 4 parking spaces designated specifically for this use and there are 8 spaces in the lot, which are open spaces that pretty much anyone can use. The Zoning Administrator did require 5 parking spaces for this use and staff felt that those 5 parking spaces were being met through the 4 designated and the 8 open spaces. Therefore, it does meet the parking requirement. Staff reviewed the proposal against the Comprehensive Plan, which designates this property for Urban Density Residential and against the Neighborhood Model. Because this is an existing site and there are no anticipated land use impacts, staff does not recommend any site improvements or exterior modifications. Staff feels that it is in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and is recommending approval. Staff recommends two conditions of approval. The first condition was that the maximum number of students be kept at ten. The second condition would be that the normal hours of operation be from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p,m. with a provision that an occasional school related activity might occur outside of those hours. She pointed out that Steve Melton was here to answer any questions on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Rieley asked if there were questions for staff. Mr. Thomas stated that it was a very good use for shared parking. He stated that in the condition it said except school related events. He asked what events that they would be and if they would occur du ring the specified hours. Ms. Gillispie stated that this was a standard condition that the Zoning Department likes them to put on private schools. This condition would allow a graduation ceremony or some other activity for parents. Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Steve Melton stated that he would represent MS. Gest tonight. He stated that he concurred with staff's comments and would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Rieley asked if anybody else would like to address this issue. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bdng the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action. Mr. Thomas moved for approval of SP-2003-74, Kadn M. Gest Pdvate School, with the conditions recommended by staff in the staff report. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 16, 2003 DRAFT MINUTES 3 1. Maximum enrollment shall be 10 students; 2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM provided that occasional school-related events might occur outside of these hours. Mr. Edgerton seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (5:0). (Finley - Absent) Mr. Rieley stated that SP-2003-74 would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval and would be heard on January 7th. (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 16, 2003 DRAFT MINUTES 4 Albemarle County Planning Commission December 16, 2003 Partial Set of Draft Minutes For SP-2003-075 Alan & Theresa Zick/Ashleigh Preservation Tract B and SP-2003-074 Karen M. Gest Private School The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public headng on Tuesday, December 16, 2003 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Chairman; Rodney Thomas, Vice-Chairman; Bill Edgerton; Jared Loewenstein and Pete Craddock. Absent was William Finley. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Susan Thomas, Senior Planner; Stephen Waller, Senior Planner; Scott Clark, Senior Planner; Tarpley Gillespie, Senior Planner; Joan McDowell, Principal Planner;, and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Public Hearing Items: SP-2003-075 Alan & Theresa ZicldAshleigh Preservation Tract B: Request for special use permit to allow construction of a bridge in a floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3.05.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for Water related uses such as boat docks, canoe liveries, bridges, ferries, culverts and river crossings of transmission lines of all types. The property, described as Tax Map 34, Parcel 22V, contains 100 acres, and is zoned RA Rural Areas. The proposal is located on Priddy Court, approximately 0.3 miles from the intersection of Priddy Court and Ashleigh Way Road, in the Rlvanna Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 2. (Scott Clark) Mr. Clark summarized the staff report. This is a request for a permit for a bridge in Turkey Run. The bridge was built prior to the current owner's purchase of the property and no one really knows whether or not it was built prior to the adoption of the current flood plain regulations. The applicant wants to make sure that their bridge is in conformity with the regulations. They don't plan any further construction beyond what is already there. Currently it is a 100-acre parcel in the Ashleigh Rural Preservation Development. It is one of two preservation tracts and it is under easement held by the County. Staff's main concems with this would be erosion im pacts on the neighboring properties, impacts on the stream and health and safety. It is possible that there will be erosion impacts from the construction of this bridge even though it has been in place for some time. One of the conditions recommended at the end of the staff report is for a mitigation plan to be established by the Engineering Department, which most likely would consist of some plantings to help stabilize the banks and limit that problem. The other largest issue with this was the structural adequacy of the bridge. The Engineering Department put in another of their standard conditions, which is just to make sure that they get the calculations showing that the bridge is adequate. It is possible if there is a problem with that that some minor reinforcement of the bridge would be done, but nobody expects any significant construction. We also reviewed this with Mr. Kamptner to ensure that the approval of this permit would not violate the terms of the easement. The easement does talk about preventing alterations to the overall topography of the property, but this is not considered anything of that scale. It is a fairly small bridge and flat area and there is very little elevation change involved with it at all. Therefore, staff is recommending approval with the five conditions that you can see at the end of the staff report. Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Clark. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant would like to address the Commission. Edc Morrisette stated that he was present to represent the applicants, Alan and Theresa Zick. He pointed out that Mr. Zick was here with him tonight. He stated that Mr. Zick and his wife purchased this property and in the selection process for the desired home they took a look at the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 16, 2003 DRAFT MINUTES bridge and realized that they should look into the legality of the bridge. He pointed out that they were mostly here tonight simply to try to comply with the ordinance requirements. As they inquired about the bridge, they found that that bridge has been them for many years. The research indicated that there had been a ford there as far back as the 1800's. A deed of 1910 certainly showed that. There was a ford crossing the stream. The property changed hands many times between various lumber companies. He stated that he could not locate any one in the large companies that have any history for these parcels. As far back as he could date was a party that was involved at a transaction in the mid-80's that verified that there was a bridge on the property at that time. Certainly, they needed it to date back to 1980 when this section was applied to the Zoning Ordinance. He pointed out that he had written statements from parties that date back to the mid-1980's stating that the bddge was there. He stated that he also has another written statement in the year of 2000 when the bridge had some repairs done. At both times the bridge was at a point of disarray. It is a very sturdy bridge if you have been out to see it. It has concrete abutments and steel beams underneath. At the time of initial construction, it had a wooden deck going across it, and around the year 2000 or late '90's when the most recent logging had occurred the decking of the bdde became so unsteady that they had to replace it. The owner at that time went in and put a concrete reinforced decking on top of that bridge. They certainly believe that the bridge has been there forever. There have been no changes done to the abutments and he had a written statement to that effect. He stated that they were just here tonight to make it a legal issue with the County so that they could get their building permit to move forward. Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Morrisette. He asked if anyone else would like to address this application. There being none, he closed the public hearing to bring the matter back to the Commission for discussion and possible action. Mr. Loewenstein stated that this seems to be a pretty straightforward proposal. He noted that the Commission finds themselves in a somewhat peculiar position of approval expo-factor or whatever the right term would be. But given that there does not appear to be any significant disturbance involved, he would be in favor of this. He stated that he would be willing to move to that effect once they hear from the other Commissioners. Mr. Craddock stated that he agreed. Mr. Loewenstein moved for approval of SP-2003-75, Alan & Theresa Zick/Ashleigh Preservation Tract B, subject to five conditions recommended in the staff report. 1. Engineering Department approval of computations and plans documenting changes to the floodplain. Plans must show floodplain limits and levels before and after construction. Sections 18-30.3.02.2 and 18-30.3.03.2 allow no increase in flood levels. However, in areas of approximated floodplain, FEMA map accuracy is within 1 vertical foot. 2. Engineering Department receipt of copies of federal and state permits for disturbance of the stream channel and any associated wetlands. 3, Engineering Department approval of mitigation plan for repair and enhancement of the stream buffer. The mitigation plan shall include an implementation schedule. 4. Engineering Department approval of plans and computations verifying structural adequacy of the bridge and abutments. 5. Conditions 1 through 4 must be met within four months of the approval date of this permit. Mr. Thomas seconded the motion. The motion carded by a vote of (5:0). (Finley - Absent) Mr. Rieley stated that SP-2003-75 would go to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval and would be heard on January 7~h. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - DECEMBER 16, 2003 DRAFT MINUTES 2 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Departmeqt of Planning & Community Development 401 Mclntire Road, Room 218 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 (434) 296 - 5823 Fax (434) 972 - 4012 December 18, 2003 Kadn M. Gest 306 Gloucester Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 RE: SP-2003-74 Karin M. Gest Private School; Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, Parcel 202B Dear Ms. Gest: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on December 16, 2003, by a vote of 5:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Maximum enrollment shall be 10 students; 2. Normal hours of operation for the school shall be from 4:00 PM tO 8:00 PM provided that occasional school-related events may occur outside of these hours. Please' be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on Januacy 7', 2004. Any new or additional information regarding your application must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at least seven days prior to your scheduled hearing date. If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me (434) 296-5823. Sincerely, Tarpley Gillespie Planner TG/jcf Cc: Ella Carey Amelia McCulley Jack Ketsey Steve AIIshouse STAFF PERSON: PLANNING COMMISSION: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TARPLE¥ V. GILLESPIE DECEMBER 16, 2003 JANUARY 3, 2004 SP-2003-074 Karin M. Gest Private School Applicant's Proposal: The applicant's proposal is for a special use permit to allow a private school for classroom driver training. The proposed school would be located within the existing Branchlands Professional Center building on Incarnation Drive. The proposed school would consist of 1 employee and an average of 8 students at any given time. Classes would be conducted in the evenings, generally from 6pm-8pm. Petition: Request for a special use permit to allow a private school for classroom driver training in accordance with Section 20.4.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for private schools in the PUD Zoning District. The property, described as Tax Map 61Z Parcel 3- 202, contains .245 acres, and is zoned PUD-Planned Unit Development. The proposal is located on Incarnation Drive, at the intersection of Branchlands Boulevard (Rout 1694) and Hillsdale Drive (Route 1427) in the Rio Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood Two. Attachment A, the property tax map, shows the location of the parcel. Petitioners: The applicant is Karin M, Gest. The office building is. owned in a condominium regime and the owners of the condominium unit are Karin M. Gest and Robert Gest. 'Zoning History: In 1975, SP 446 was approved establishing Branchlands as a PUD to be developed with 782 dwelling units and 16 acres of commercial area. In 1978, Charlottesville Fashion Square Mall purchased 10.74 acres of the commercial area to be developed as a portion of the shopping mall. A site plan for this building (SDP 1998-027) was approved in 1999. The plan required 97 parking spaces. 105 parking spaces are provided on the site. Backflround: The Zoning Ordinance requires that, for school uses, the number of required parking spaces shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator. In making the determination, the Zoning Administrator is to consider the recommendations of a parking study provided by the applicant as well as traffic generation figures, parking demands and any other relevant information. The applicant provided a parking study to the Zoning Administrator, which stipulates that there will be no more than 10 students at any particular time, and that the general hoUrs of operation of the instruction will b'e between 4-8 PM. Based on this information, the Zoning Administrator has determined that a total of 5 parking spaces will be required for this use. Attachment B is a Parking Plan for the Branchlands Professional Center. The plan shows 4 parking.spaces will be marked "Gest Education Services" and will be reserved for this specific use. In addition, there are 8 spaces that are vacant on the parking plan. In order to meet the parking requirement, the 4 reserved spaces, plus at least one of the vacant spaces must be maintained on the plan. Character of the Area: The proposed school is to be located within an existing condominium building, the Branchlands Professional Center. Other uses in the building include Atlantic Sports and Rehab and several business-uses. This site is located on Hillsdale Drive, at the intersection of Incarnation Drive and opposite Branchlands Boulevard. South and east of the site is the Branchlands retirement village. Across Hillsdale drive are commercial shopping areas of Food Lion and Toys R Us. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density Residential, which recommends 6-34 Dwelling Units Per Acre. The Urban Density Residential designation is intended to accommodate all dwelling types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schoolS, and early childhood education centers including daycare centers and preschools. The proposed school is consistent with the Urban Density Residential designation. The Neighborhood Model provides additional support to the Land Use Plan by setting forth principles for how development should take place in Development Areas. The use is proposed within an existing building and no exterior changes are proposed. Staff has evaluated this proposal and does not belieVe that any modifications are needed to the site to conform to the Neighborhood Model or other parts of the Comprehensive Plan. RECOMMENDATION Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval with conditions. STAFF COMMENT: Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance: The Board of Supervisors hereby reserves unto itself the fight to issue all special use permits permitted hereunder. Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property. South and east of the site is the Branchlands retirement village. Across Hiltsdale drive are commercial shopping areas of Food Lion and Toys R Us. Adjacent to the site on Hillsdale Drive is Woodlands Day Care. The proposed use is to be located entirely within the existing Branchlands Professional Center. There are no exterior site modifications proposed. Staff does not anticipate any significant traffic impacts. Therefor, staff finds that there is no negative impact from this proposal on the adjacent properties. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, This site is located within a PUD Planned Development zoning district. The proposed use is a relatively small instructional facility to be located entirely within the existing building. The proposal is compatible the site and surrounding areas. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Staff has reviewed this request with consideration for the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development section of the Zoning Ordinance as stated in Section 18.20.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Planned Unit Development districts are intended "to serve as neighborhoods or mini neighborhoods within designated communities and the urban area." It is intended that "appropriate commercial and industrial uses are provided in addition to a variety of residential uses." The proposed driving school is to be located entirely within an existing professional office building. It is staffs opinion that this proposal is consistent with the purpose and intent of the PUD District of the Zoning Ordinance. with the uses permitted by right in the district, Due to the limited scale of this school and its location within an existing building, approval of this request will not negatively affect any of the by-right uses that are allowed within the district or on this site. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. T.he proposed classroom driving training school provides a unique service to the community and serves the public purpose of affording local citizens the opportunity to receive driver training within this Community. SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. There is adequate parking available on site to address this use. 2. The classroom driving training school will provide a service to the community. 3. As the use will be located entirely within an existing facility, no new land use impacts are anticipated. Staff finds no factors unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has reviewed this request fOr Compliance with the provisions set forth in Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and i~ecommends approval with conditions. Recommended conditions of approval: 1. Maximum enrollment shall be 10 students; 2. Normal hours of operation for lhe school shall be from 4:00 PM to 8:00 PM Provided that occasional school-related events may occur outside of these hours. ATTACHMENTS: A. Property Tax Map B. Parking Plan I ATTACHMENT A <", s~, Albemarle County Feet o ~oo ~oo ~oo Chapel Hills - Branchlands Note: This map is for display puqx~,~es only. See I~o Book I.,r, mm,~,k~ for a~clilionel ~ails. Tax Map: 061Z Part 1 DRIVE RT 1427 (60' RON~ 4' BIKE LANE ' ~ SOJTHBOUND LANE ~ / ~NTER TURN LANE // NO~OUNDLANE '\ tIKE LANE EX 8' WL -- ~" ~4' WL ESMT -- ' 170 20' I 3T I _LAGE I I TM 6tZ-3~4 BRANCHLANDS LAND TRUST GRANCHLANDS RETIREMENT VILLAGE PUD TM 61Z-3-56 . ~ BRANCHLANDS LAND ~RUST BRANCHLANDS RETIRENENT VILLAGE VACANT PUD DATE DATE NOTES 6. Paved rlp-ra~ or stabilization ~at lineO Oitch ~ay be requ~reo with OSHA Stanaaroa for the Con~truCt$on Industry (29 CFR Part 1926) DITCH DETAIL COUNTYOF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: CPA 03-03, Affordable Housing Policy SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work Session on a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to include in the Plan the Affordable Housing Policy developed by the County's Affordable Housing Committee STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. White, Cilimberg, Benish, AGENDA DATE: January 7, 2004 AcTIoN: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION.: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: ITEM NUMBER: INFORMATION: X INFORMATION: BACKGROUND: The "Preface" of the proposed Housing Policy provides a good background, and is included below: With the adoption of the Neighborhood Model by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the charge given to address the inclusion of affordable housing in future developments, the Albemarle County Housing Committee created a Housing Policy Subcommittee to draft an affordable housing policy. The subcommittee, staffed by the County's Chief of Housing, drafted an outline of options to be considered in developing the policy. In December 2002, the Housing Committee and Office of Housing convened three focus groups consisting of housing providers (nonprofits, lenders, realtors), developers, and neighborhood representatives to discuss the needs, issues, and recommendations regarding affordable housing and public policy. The result of this work and input is the following proposal offered as an affordable housing policy for Albemarle County. Some previous work had been done leading up to the development of the policy. The Housing Committee and Board of Supervisors first defined affordable housing in July and September of 1998, respectively. The definition proposed in this policy maintains the intent of the previously-adopted general definition. The Board, at the request of the Housing Committee, adopted a Resolution of Intent to Amend fhe Comprehensive Plan in November 2002. Finally, although not required for the adoption of this policy, the Board approved a request by staff to seek legislation allowing Albemarle County flexibility in creating and Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance. This enabling legislation was approved in the 2002 session of the General Assembly. This amendment is considered an important implementation step of the Neighborhood Model, STRATEGIC PLAN: GOAL: 3.3 - Promote a variety of safe, sanitary and affordable housing types. OBJECTIVE 3.3.2 - By December 2003, the County will develop policies and ongoing programs that increase affordable home ownership options for households with incomes below 80% of median income. DISCUSSION: Attachment A is the recommended Housing Policy, which is proposed to be included in the Comprehensive Plan as a separate, stand alone new section like the Economic Development Policy). Attachment B is additional text amendments to the Land Use Plan section of the Comprehensive Plan. Both Attachments A and B constitute the proposed amendment. AGENDA TITLE: CPA-03-03, Affordable Housing Policy January 7, 2004 Page 2 One of the key elements of the proposed policy is the strategy that establishes the desired minimum amount of affordable housing units that should be provided within development proposals. This strategy suggests that a minimum 15 percent of all units developed should be affordable housing units as defined by the County Housing Office and Housing Committee. This strategy will provide guidance to staff in the review of development projects, particularly rezonings and special use permits. The Housing Committee is not recommending that a certain development size be established below which this strategy should not be applied. The Committee is recommending that all developments, regardless of s'rze; be subject to review under this strategy. The review of the Housing Committee's proposed policy has gone through the following steps: Planning Commission held first work session to discuss on August 19, 2003, and directed staff to set public hearing and schedule one final Focused Group Discussion with interested parties to answer questions and receive comments prior to the public hearing (a Focused Group Discussion process was used by the Housing Committee to help in the formulation of the Policy); Focused Group Discussion was held September 19, 2003. One change was made to the draft CPA based on Focused Group comments to more clearly indicate some flexibility in applying specific housing targets in the review of development proposals. A summary of the comments from this meeting is provided in Attachment C. 'PC public headng was held on October 28, 2003. PC also received from staffa reporting of the comments from the Focus Group Discussion. PC recommended approval of the Housing Policy and the proposed text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, The PC directed staff to review the Focused Group Discussion comments with the Housing Committee prior to Board's review of the CPA. (Planning Commission minutes are include in Attachment D.) The Housing Committee met on November 20th to reviow the status of the Housing Policy CPA including the Planning Commission's review and the comments received from the Focused Group Discussion. The Committee discussed the Focus Group comments and the Commission's comments and action. The Housing Committee suggested no changes to the proposed policy at this time. The Committee viewed many of the comments as items that will need to be discussed and formulated as a part of implementation and would be more detail than desired in a policy statement. The Housing Committee also understands that the policy could come back to the Committee after the Board's work session for further discussion/revision. Representatives from the Housing Committee will be available at the Board's work session. RECOMMENDATION: No action is required at this work session. Ultimately a public hearing will need to be set before adoption of the Housing Policy CPA. Attachments: A--Affordable Housing Policy and Amendments to Land Use Plan Text B~Additional Text Amendments to the Land Use Plan C--Summary of Focus Group Discussion Comments D--Planning Commission minutes of October 28, 2003 ATTACHMENT A Proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan AFFORDABLE HOUSING POLICY Approved by the Albemarle County Housing Committee March 2003 Format Revised July 30 and August 8, 2003 Revised 10/20/03 PREFACE With the adoption of the Neighborhood Model by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the charge given to address the inclusion of affordable housing in future developments, the Albemarle County Housing Committee created a Housing Policy Subcommittee to draft an affordable housing policy. The subcommittee, staffed by the County's Chief of Housing, drafted an outline of options to be considered in developing the policy. In December 2002, the Housing Committee and Office of Housing convened three focus groups consisting 0f housing providers (nonprofits, lenders, realtors), developers, and neighborhood representatives to discuss the needs, issues, and recommendations regarding affordable housing and public policy. The result of this work and input is the following proposal offered as an affordable housing policy for Albemarle County. ~L~ Some previous work had been done leading up to the development of the policy. The Housing Committee and Board of Supervisors first defined affordable housing in July and September of 1998, respectively. The definition proposed in this policy maintains the intent of the previously- adopted general definition. The Board, at the request of the Housing Committee, adopted a Resolution of lntent to Amend the Comprehensive Plan in November 2002. Finally, although not required for the adoption of this policy, the Board approved a request by staff to seek legislation allowing Albemarle County flexibility in creating and Affordable Dwelling Unit Ordinance. This enabling legislation was approved in the 2002 session of the General Assembly. O .VERVIEW/BACKGROUND Albemarle County's population has grown from 68,000 in 1990 to 84,000 in 2000 (23.5%). The number of occupied housing units in Albemarle County also grew with owner-occxtpied units increasing from 11,562 to 20,991 and rental units from 7,361 to 10,885 representing an 81.5% growth in owner-occupied units and 47.8% growth in rental units. While the overall growth in occupied units appears to be consistent with population growth based on an average of 2.5 persons per unit, the trends support the concern that cost of housing for low- to moderate-income households is increasing. These trends include cost burden and fewer affordable units being developed. It should be noted that, according to 1999 income data from the U.S. Census, of 31,916 households, 15, 689 (49. I%) had incomes below $50,000. Approximately 5,500 (17.3%) have incomes between $35,000 and $50,000. These income levels would be equivalent to sixty- to eighty-percent of the area median income. Cost Burden - According to the 2000 U.S, Census over 2000 owner-occupied households (12,4%) had housing costs that exceed 35% of their household income, while 3100 renters (30.7°/$) had housing costs exceeding 35% of household income. ATTACHMENT A ,Affordable Unit Development - According to County assessment records 11,632 houses in the County would be considered affordable based on affordability defined as a maximum sales price of approximately $175,000. This represents 43.6 % of all houses (26,668 ). How ev er in 2001 there were only 510 affordable resales dropping to 399 affordable resales in 2002. There were 1404 total sales 2002 including 426 units (28%) defined as affordable (under $175,000). Of the total sales, 318 were new homes of which only 27 of those units (8%) were considered affordable. Rental Housing - Most of the County's affordable rental housing (maximum 2-bedroom rent of $725~00) was developed prior to 1998. Four of these are multifamily properties totaling 539 units that have rents restricted by federal low-income housing tax credits. Since 1998, three properties have been developed as unrestricted or family units. While the properties have added over 450 new units only 20 units offer affordable rents. In addition to these units, 97 units of elderly housing was developed with rents restricted by funding sources (bonds and tax ca'edits). Data indicates that the current trends wilt continue to add pressures on housing affordabitity that will impact 40% of the County's population. This Comprehensive Plan Amendment has been developed to outline objectives and recommendations that may be used to support the County's desire to increase the number of newly developed units that may be affordable for all rezoning and special use permit applications. DEFINITION Affordable Housing, in general terms means safe, decent housing where housing costs do not exceed 30% of the gross household income. Housing costs for homeowners shall include principal, interest, real estate taxes, and homeowner's insurance (PITI). Housing costs for tenants shall be tenant-paid rent and tenant-paid utilities with maximum allowances for utilities to be those adopted by the Housing 02rice for the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Affordable Housing is defined, for the purpose of this policy, as those houses affordable to the forty percent of the County population that have household incomes at or below 80% of the area median income. For 2003, the maximum affordable home for purchase (80°,4 median income) would be $172,000 and maximum housing costs (rent and utilities) for tenants would be $787 (50°/6 median income). OBJECTIVES It shall be the policy of Albemarle County to support affordable housing for those who live and/or work in the County. In particular, the County will provide guidance, resources, and incentives to the nonprofit and for-profit development and financing communities to increase the supply of affordable housing (both rental and homeownership) for households with incomes between 0 and 80% of area median income by Promoting safe, decent, and affordable housing options for low- to moderate-income residents of Albemarle County and those working in and desiring to reside in Albemarle County; Insuring variety/choice in housing and equal housing opportunities; · Creating andpreserving safe, high quality and sustainable neighborhoods; Understanding diverse housing needs and special needs ofvariouspopulations; and, Directing assistance to those populations least able to attain safe, affordable housing through the private sector alone. ATTACHMENT A The County should encourage the preservation of all existing affordable housing units County wide and the development of new housing in a manner consistent with the County's Growth Management Policy. The provision of affordable housing should be focused on the designated Development Areas to be consistent with the Growth Management Policy and to provide homes where a higher level of services and facilities (both public and private) are available to support residents. Affordable housing may be provided in the designated Rural Area consistent with rural area policy and regulations. STRATEGIES AND RECOMME!~,,, ATIONS Strategy: ca Develop and implement necessary regulatory and administrative functions for establishing affordable housing strategies in all applicable development review applications. Recommendations · Develop process to measure and track existing affordable housing stock. · Update annual affordabilityfigures for sales prices and rentals based on median income figures provided by the U.S, Department of Housing and Urban Development. · Assess andprioritize housing needs and associated supportive services required throughout the housing continuum. · Develop affordable housingproduction goals based on documented need/demand to address identified housing priorities and to insure that tow- and moderate-income households have access to a sufficient supply of new and redeveloped housing units. · Promote the use of the existing density bonus ordinance as a tool to achieve affordable housing. · Work with other County departments and outside agencies to promote a streamlined and timely process for plan approvals. · Implement the adopted affordable policy(les) to the greatest extent possible for all rezoning and special use permit applications. Strategy: ca Set specific targets for the development of affordable units for low-and moderate-income families with sufficient flexibility to allow for negotiation based onthe development's size, location, timeline, and nature of surrounding area. At a minimum, 15% of all units developed under rezoning and special use permits should be affordable as defined by the County's Office of Housing and Housing Committee. Recommendations · Develop procedures to work with developers tophase in affordable units within a neighborhood as described in the Neighborhood Model including the use of regulatory and monetary incentives available through the County, its partners and state and federal programs. · }York with the developers and nonprofit housing organizations to create procedures to phase in affordable units in a development and ensuring that such units are compatible with other homes in the development. Affordable units shouM include both units for sale and units for rent. ATTACHMENT A Promote a design criterion that disperses affordable homes throughout a development and encourages a variety of housing types. Use Master Plans developed in designated development areas as guidance for the creation of affordable units that are scattered throughout the development. Strategy: ca Develop strategies and mechanisms including security instruments for the initial sale of affordable units to promote long-term affordability and protect direct monetary investments from public resources. Recommendations · Developproceduresfor monitoring and enforcing occupancy and resale restrictions required by law and/or funding sources. · Establish afirst right-of-refusal for the purchase ofaffordable units for rent or sale by the County and/or its nonprofit partners. · Develop deed restrictions and other mechanisms to insure affordable units developed with County incentives remain affordable for a specific period of time (control period). Strategy: a Expand existing partnerships/programs and create new alliances with the private sector including nonprofit and for-profit housing providers and lenders. Recommendations · Develop methods for reviewing the processes and effectiveness ofprequalifying and certifying families for purchase or rental units produced Utilize the nonprofit housing agencies and County's Homebuyer Clubs to identify and prequalify purchasers and renters for affordable housing units. Increase access to counseling by expanding the County's homeownership education programs and utilizing similar services provided by others. · Continue to support nonprofit housing organizations and help clarify roles and responsibilities for each including, but not limited to, community development, housing development, affordable lending, and housing counseling. · Develop formal and informalprocedures for dialogue with and among the private sector (for-profit and nonproflO development community to increase production of affordable housing during the rezoning and special use permitting processes. · Foster arrangements betweenfor,profit developers and the nonprofit organizations to facilitate the purchase of lots and/or Units and insure occupancy of units by eligible households. · Promote affordable housing by increasingpart~cipation with the real estate community including representative organizations (mortgage bankers, apartment council, and homebuilders). · Provide encouragement and incentives to nonprofit housingprovidersfor the purchase, construction, rehabilitation and/or management of affordable owner- occupied and rental units. · Promote understanding of the regional nature ofaffordable housing ~ssues and participate with neighboring jurisdictions in addressing these issues. Strategy: c~ Seek additional resources including those through the state and federal governments for the development and/or financing of affordable housing. 4 ATTACHMENT A Recommendations · Support tax credit applicationsforproperties thatpreserve or create affordable rental units. · Develop strategies for effectively leveragingpublic andprivate funds to maximize resources for affordable housing including opaons for capitalizing a housing trust ATTACHMENT B ~Proposed.text amendments are in bold, italic .and underlined twe. See ~a_qes ~2, 2~ and 23 for amendments; Land Use (As Amended July 10, 2002, Pages 8.32) Introduction The Land Use Plan provides direction for physical development in the County. It reflects the "Community Vision Statement" as well as the County's projections for economic, population, and housing demands.-It balances these projections against growth management goals and emphasizes the preservation and intelligent utilization of limited resources. The Plan recognizes existing land use arrangements, supporting facilities, and physical development limitations. The Land Use Plan recognizes the County's existence in a regional setting and attempts to integrate the County's physical development with that of neighboring jurisdictions. Such integration may be enhanced by future analysis and cooperative regional planning efforts similar to the cooperative planning occurring among Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. The Land Use Plan is but one element of the Comprehensive Plan, and must be viewed as interrelated and interdependent with other goals and objectives. Proper Comprehensive Plan decisions must be made by reviewing the Land Use Plan in concert with all other Plan elements. The Land Use Plan provides guidance for development that will be harmonious to the natural and man-made environments and consistent with the County's Growth management goals-which are to channel development into designated Development Areas while conserving the balance of the County as rural areas. The Land Use Plan for Designated Development Areas In this section, the Neighborhood Model, a key component in the Land Use Plan, and its goals are outlined. A general description of Development Areas is followed by functional descriptions of the three types of Development Areas: the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. Thereafter, General Principles and standards for physical development in the Development Areas, and specific standards for nonresidential land uses are outlined. Finally, the Development Areas are profiled through narratives and maps that convey both descriptive references and visual impressions of land-use relationships. The Neighborhood Model The Land Use Plan relies heavily on the Neighborhood Model that was appended to the C°mprehensive Plan in 2001. The Neighborhood Model supports a change in the form of urban development from what currently exists. It recognizes that, if the Development Areas are to be the primary areas receiving residential growth, density must be increased ATTACHMENT B to at least the low end of the density scale that is recommended on the land use plans for the individual Development Areas. To achieve that density, the form of development must change and that form must be more urban and less suburban. Another key element is that master planning process guide growth in the Development Areas. Also included with the Neighborhood Model are descriptions of innovative design tools for creating more urban livable neighborhoods. Master Planning and ordinance revisions require time for writing, adoption, and implementation. It is important that the ordinance revisions are designed and written to be user friendly and that they contain appropriate incentives to encourage the desired higher quality, higher density forms of development as anticipated by the Neighborhood Model. As a result, there will be a time lag between the adoption of the Neighborhood Model and its full implementation. It is intended that the parts of this Plan which do not require a Master Plan or ordinance revision, including but not limited to the 12 Principles described in later paragraphs, will guide a new form of development for the County's designated Development Areas. What the Neighborhood Model Offers The Neighborhood Model seeks to change the form of development from a pattern of sprawling, isolated buildings to a more compact and interconnected design. The Neighborhood Model: 1. Accommodates walkers, bikers, and public transportation so that mobility can be a reality for the elderly, the young, and those with limited access to automobiles. 2. Makes open space integral to overall design so that residents and workers can walk to a public park, experience preserved natural areas, and enjoy public gathering spaces. 3. Keeps buildings and spaces at a human scale so that street views are attractive and pedestrian -friendly. 4. Incorporates varying densities and gradually allows for an overall increase in density in the Development Areas to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Contains a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so residents have convenient access to work, to services, and to entertainment. Requires interconnected streets within developments and between developments so that pedestrians can walk easily to many destinations, traffic has alternative routes, and car trips are reduced in number and length. 7. Moves off-street parking out of sight and encourages on-street parking. 8. Mixes housing types and markets so that a full range of housing choices is offered within the neighborhood. ATTACHMENT B 9. Emphasizes re-use of sites. 10. Adapts development to site terrain so that natural topography can be preserved. 11. Maintains a clear boundary between Development Areas and Rural Areas. 12. Provides for neighborhoods to have a designated center to bring diverse and continuous activity to a neighborhood. The Neighborhood Model Goals: Goals for the Neighborhoods are as follows: Centers - Neighborhoods within the Development Areas will have centers or focal points for congregating. These may include schools, parks, places of worship, civic centers, or small commercial and social areas. Such features will be an easy walk for most residents in the neighborhood, Open Space - Each Development Area will offer opportunities for public and pdvate outdoor recreational areas for active and passive recreation. Network - A network of streets, bikeways, pedestrian paths, and bus routes will connect new neighborhoods as well as existing residential areas and nonresidential districts. Mixed Uses - Neighborhoods will contain a true mix of uses, including residences, shops, and places of employment, as well as civic, religious, and cultural institutions. Building Placement and Scale - Consideration will be given to massing, height, setbacks, and orientation of buildings so that these characteristics enhance the public realm, in particular, garages will be less dominant at street view than houses. · Alleys - Where topography permits, alleys will provide rear access to parcels, allowing for and facilitating the provision of garages and utilities to the rear of houses. Relegated Parking - Parking for the automobile will not result in an excessive amount of paved area; parking on the street will be the norm, and the preference will be for parking lots to be located to the rear and/or sides of buildings. Variety of Housing Types - Each neighborhood wilt possess a vadety of housing types accommodating a range of incomes. Affordable units will be dispersed throughout the Neighborhood and will be visually indistinguishable from other units. Appealing Streetscapes - As the fundamental element of' public space within the neighborhood, the street will make the neighborhood inviting with street trees and landscaping. Sidewalks or paths that connect houses to each other and to centers and ATTACHMENT B common areas will be the norm. Walks will connect sidewalks to front doors and main entrances. Transportation Options - Convenient routes for pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses and other transit including light rail will augment the street network. Public transit stops will be located within each Development Area. Walking to them will be safe and convenient. Waiting for transit will be comfortable and a normal part of activity in the Neighborhood Center. General Principle for Land Use in Designated Development Areas: For the County's growth management goals to be achieved, the Development Areas must be attractive places to live and work. The land within the Development Areas must also be used efficiently if designation of these Areas is to realistically help prevent sprawl development. To this end, the Land Use Plan for the Development Areas is designed to concentrate development in the Development Areas, particularly in the locations designated "Urban Areas" or "Communities." Planning for future development in the Development Areas is at densities higher than in the past, with more varied uses. Furthermore, revised plans for the Development Areas emphasize the County's desire for design strategies that are more characteristic of small, well-planned city neighborhoods or towns than of typical low-density suburban areas. Inevitably, some people will experience more significant change than others and will find .that nearby land uses may not be the same character as their residential area. However, through careful design of the land use plan and its development standards and recommendations, this situation can be beneficial for the community. Listed below are the principles that guide development of Development Areas. The Development Areas Land Use Plan, as well as subsequent decisions regarding land use in these areas should be reflective of, and consistent with, these principles: 1. Accommodate new growth in the County within Development Areas. 2. Encourage greater utilization of land in designated Development Areas by achieving higher gross densities for residential and non-residential development than in the past. 3. Encourage infill development of vacant lands and development of under-used areas within the designated Development Areas. Development Areas shall not encroach into water supply watersheds, except for the Crozet Community that shall not be expanded beyond the watershed boundary of the Lickinghole Creek detention basin. 5. Avoid development of "Significant Areas" as designated in the Open Space Plan. 6. Discourage extensive linear style development along major roads. ATTACHMENT B 7. Ail Development Areas shall be served by public sewer and water. 8. Plan for a system of transportation and community facilities and services that support and enhance the Development Areas. 9. Encoura.qe the provision of affordable housina in a manner consistent with the County's adopted Affordable Housin.q Policy (See Housin.q Policy, Section -. pp. -., .of the ComPrehensive plan). A General Description of Development Areas OBJECTIVE: Direct growth into designated Development Areas. A long-standing goal of Albemarle County's comprehensive planning effort has been to direct development into designated Development Areas. VVith the continuance of County growth management goals, the current Development Area concept remains a critical planning component. The Land Use Plan, including the Neighborhood Model, presents mechanisms that will provide the best opportunity for the Development Area concept to work. in combination with objectives and strategies presented in the Community Facilities section of this Chapter, this requires establishing in the Land Use Plan a Development Areas concept and design that demonstrates effident utilization of land and services, while responding to long-term market demands (see Map A). As the Development Areas are intended to capture the wide range of development and land uses necessary in Albemarle County, it should be .reco,qnized that complete separation of different uses is not expected. Rather, a balance of efficient land use and appropriate separation and buffering is sought which may result in areas with a variety and mix of uses. Residential uses may end up next to, or near, non-residential uses, with the goal of achieving a harmonious relationship between the two. Functional Description of Development Area OBJECTIVE: Establish functional descriptions of the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. The Development Areas consist of, among other things, a sense of place and community identity. They are discrete areas with recognizable boundaries and internal connections to the places within. There are, for instance, residential areas and commercial areas and mixed-use areas. However, when viewed in the context of the community as a whole, there is a sustainable mixture of residences, jobs, services, recreation and amenities developed in a form that meets the ATTACHMENT B principles and overall objectives of the Neighborhood Model Three types of Development Areas are traditional to the County's comprehensive planning. As a group, they are intended to provide for the variety of land use designations necessary to meet varied local market demands. They are also considered the focal point for the provision of public services and facilities, either at a countywide or more localized level. There are no minimum or maximum population standards for the different types of Development Areas. It is intended that the functional descriptions guide the development scale of the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. Determination of boundaries for each Development Area is necessary to distinguish a self-contained geographiC place and preclude sprawl of development. For the purpose of accommodating future growth, boundaries do not necessarily reflect entire existing social communities, but instead attempt to delineate areas with some sense of place that contain significant areas of developable land contiguous to existing developed areas. Boundaries are based on resource protection priorities, primarily water supply watershed areas, and the opportunity for the geographic area to be adequately supported by public services and facilities. To the greatest extent possible, boundaries are defined by natural and man-made physical features. Because Development Area boundaries do not follow property boundaries, development proposals may extend outside of Development Areas. For those parcels extending from Development Areas into the Rural Areas, development of the Rural Area portion should not exceed Rural Area densities. The functions of the three types of Development Area are hierarchical, as the following descriptions indicate: Urban Area (Neighborhoods 1 - 7) Albemarle County's Urban Area, together with the City of Charlottesville, serves as a regional urban center. It is intended to provide for a full vadety and range of land uses and densities, both residential and non-residential. It is intended to be more urban, or "city like," in character and less suburban. It is to be supported by a full range of public utilities, facilities, services and amenities. The Urban Area is comprised of: 1. A full array of residential types and densities with an urban character of development. 2. All service levels of retail, professional business, and industrial activities (See service-level descriptions in the Land Use Designations" section below). 3. Regional employment centers. 4. Regional water and sewer services. ATTACHMENT B 5. Extensive urban and regional public facilities and services. 6. Access from. inter-county and major intra-county roadways and transportation services. 7. Geographically defined neighborhoods that: Contain well-defined residential areas, which are well integrated with non-residential areas and may include any of the land use designations defined in the "Land Use Designations" section: open space, transitional, neighborhood service, community service, regional service, office/regional service, or industrial service; Are supported by transportation systems that include interconnected streets, pedestrian paths, bicycle circulation systems, and mass transit. Communities Communities are smaller urban centers that are geographically removed from the Urban Area. Like the Urban Area, they provide for a full variety and range of land uses and densities, both residential and non-residential. They are intended to be more urban, or "town like" in character. Communities are to be supported by a full range of public utilities, facilities, services, and amenities. Communities consist of: 1. Urban centers geographically removed from the Urban Area. Full range of residential uses and densities and the full range of non-residential uses described in the Land Use Designations section. 3. Community core of mixed service and residential use, including community and/or regional services. 4. Regional employment centers. 5. Well-defined residential areas. 6. Major intra-County roadways linked to the Urban Area. Residential areas supported by an integrated and interconnected system of streets; pedestrian and bicycle circulation systems; neighborhood commercial, professional, business, and public ATTACHMENT B service uses; and public water and sewer. 8. Public facilities supporting the Communities and surrounding County areas. Villages Villages provide for a specialized opportunity to accommodate growth. It is anticipated that future Villages will more likely be established based on public requests rather than County initiative. Therefore, more detailed design guidelines for future Village designation are provided. Review of future requests for Village designations should be based on these guidelines as well as other applicable goals, objectives, strategies, standards and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Village Development/Design Guidelines Villages are places that combine the feeling of "country living" with the amenities of a Development Area. Villages consist of: A variety of housing types including single-family, two-family and townhouse units, with a gross density not to exceed 6 dwellings per acre. A village center of mixed service and residential uses. Such uses shall be limited to neighborhood scale services, including convenience shopping, other general retail and service uses, medical and professional offices, and accessory apartments and attached housing. = Public sewer and water systems. This reflects a concern that, without public utilities, it is not possible to achieve village density or land use patterns which, in turn, serve to protect farmland and rural open space. It also reflects concern for protecting the environment, and for the economical and reliable provision of sewer and water services. 4. Public facilities which support the Village and the immediate surrounding Rural Area. A linkage to the Urban Area and City of Charlottesville by roads with adequate capacity (traffic-carrying ability, safety considerations, physical condition) in order to move residents conveniently between the Village and the urban ATTACHMENT B core. This guideline reflects a concern for using, but not overloading, the County s main roads (arterial and major collector), and a concern that minor roads (minor collector and local) not become subjected to traffic loads which they cannot tolerate, or which alters their character over time. This also reflects a concept of a Village as including some local services, but not major community or regional services, which are better, provided in the Urban Area. Designated Village Development Areas that are located at places where historically a settlement has existed. The proposed design should be a logical and harmonious outgrowth of what currently remains of that settlement. Most often, such locations will be at a crossroads, which provides a central focus for village activities. A proposal for an entirely new village location should demonstrate that it maintains this principle of a central village area at the logical confluence of streets and movement patterns. Development around a focal point, such as a public building, main street, park, greenway, or other open space or common area. Preferably, this focal point would incorporate an existing natural or cultural amenity. Within a proposed Village, development shall emulate historic regional patterns of village density and design, such that the feel of a traditional village is created. Elements, which can contribute to such a quality, could include: · A rectilinear or interconnecting street pattern without cul-de-sacs; · Connections to existing streets; · Compact lots; · Shallow front/sideyard setbacks; · A village center of mixed uses and public facilities and spaces; · Walkways and paths which encourage pedestrians to be the dominant mode of travel within the village center; and · Preservation and reuse of e~xisting structures. "Edge treatments" in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. Where the boundaries of the Village meet the Rural Areas, new development should be sensitive to existing character in the rural areas. A unified Village plan developed in accordance with the requirements for a planned development, in particular, the impact of the plan on existing development should be emphasized. It is expected that ATTACHMENT B consideration will be given to the needs and wishes of those already living and owning property in the area. Infill Development Policy OBJECTIVE: Facilitate infili development, including redevelopment of existing structures or new development of vacant and under- utilized areas, within existing Development Areas. For the purposes of this Plan, infill development is defined as the establishment of new land uses, esther residential or non-residential, on undeveloped or under-developed sites within the designated Development Areas. Infill development is considered one of the key initiatives for implementing the growth management policy and is encouraged for the following reasons: · To use Development Area lands in the most effident manner possible. · To discourage sprawl development. · To maximize the use/support of community services and facilities (roads, utilities, transit, other services). In the Development Areas, undeveloped areas consist of both small tracts of land (5 acres or less) and large tracts (over 100 acres). The reasons why these areas have not developed to date vary, but the primary reasons which can be cited are: The property owners desire to retain existing use and/or are unwilling to sell for development at this time. Physical characteristics such as topography (slopes, soils, streams), size/shape of property make development more difficult as well as incompatible existing adjacent uses. Condition of existing roads, utilities or possibly other community services are not able to accommodate anticipated scales of development. Proposed public projects on, or near, vacant areas often affect planning and development potential of an area. Also, the cost to develop infill lots is often relatively high compared to other sites, This is due to the fact that these areas are often surrounded by developed or zoned properties which tend to escalate the speculative value of the property. The potential for ATTACHMENT B public/neighborhood opposition to new development proposals adjacent to existing developed areas can also limit developer interest, particularly for smaller sites. Consideration of permitting more intensive uses or densities on some properties may be necessary to offset development costs including measures necessary to minimize impacts of development. A commitment of the County to support inflll development proposals consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is essential in facilitating infill development. To help achieve infiil, an inventory of undeveloped and underdeveloped properties within the County's urban neighborhoods, communities, and villages which are available for development should be updated annually. The Master Planning effort for each Development Area will help to implement infill development and will address impediments limiting the opportunity or attractiveness of sites for development. It will also encourage market forces to operate in a manner that makes these areas attractive for development. This commitment will include making changes to existing ordinances and the adoption of new ones to encourage infill development and/or the participation by the County in infrastructure capital projects designed to promote infill development. Strategies for Infili Development Strategy Plan/provide for necessary infrastructure improvements that are currently impediments to development of .vacant sites. Recommendations: Schedule public improvements needed to support/encourage infill development within undeveloped portions of the Development Areas; Develop plans for proposed public projects in a timely fashion.so that they may be incorporated into new developments, as necessary. Strategy: Provide for greater flexibility in type of use and density of development. Recommendations: · Provide for greater flexibility in gross development densities within the Land Use Plan residential categories, with a focus on increasing gross densities. · Consider rezoning vacant properties designated for residential use to reflect the recommended densities of the Land Use Plan. ATTACHMENT B · Support innovative development and design concepts, particularly those that maximize gross density of development. Promote a mixture of uses for new development and redevelopment. Strategy: Consider greater flexibility in development regulations which may limit development opportunities (without compromising issues of general health or safety). Recommendations: Evaluate and amend zoning and subdivision regulations in a manner that results in opportunities for increased development densities (including, but not limited to: critical slope regulations and open space requirements; reduction of area requirements for planned developments; density bonus provisions; commercial parking requirements, subdivision street and lot access requirements; possible impediments to "alternative" development designs). · Utilize the Open Space Plan Development Area Composite Maps as a guide for waiver requests from the critical slopes regulations. Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas Land Use standards provide guidelines for development which are consistent with the Growth Management goals and are in keeping with the man-made and natural environment. These standards provide the basic framework for the review of development proposals for the Development Areas, in conjunction with other applicable ordinances and regulations. The twelve principles contain the characteristics which the Development Areas are to reflect at buildout. However, it is recognized that as individual proposals are considered, all of the principles of the Neighborhood Model, listed as the General Land Use Standards, below, may not be equally applicable to any specific proposal. All proposals will need to be. considered in a more global context, particularly as they relate to the mix of uses. It is recognized that there are multiple applications of the principles of the Neighborhood Model and balanced, rational and reasonable application of those principles is expected. ATTACHMENT B General Land Use Standards Standards that apply to all types of development in the Development Areas are provided as "General Land Use Standards." These standards include the twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model. More specific standards for non-residential and residential land uses are provided to address the different Iocationai and surrounding character aspects of those categories. General Land Use Standards for Designated Development Areas Pedestrian Orientation - A pedestrian orientation should be reflected throughout the Development Areas, Sidewalks and pedestrian paths should be provided in new developments, redevelopment projects and in County projects funded through the Capital Improvements Program. Neighborhood-Friendly Streets and Paths - Streets should be recognized for their function within neighborhoods rather than merely transportation routes for cars. Curb and gutter, sidewalks and street-trees help to give streets a more human scale. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks - Connections between developments with an appropriately scaled transportation network should be provided to maximize a sense of community and provide additional transportation links. Emphasis is placed on linkage between developments and just not within each development. Minimize t The impact of developments should be minimized on major roads to the greatest extent feasible by limiting access points to major roads arterials such as Route 29, by providing side street access, service roads, and/or joint accesses. Provide for Ultimate future transportation improvements and new road locations should take place through the reservation of adequate right-of-way and by designing and constructing utilities in a manner consistent with planned transportation improvements. VVhile interconnected street systems will be the primary form of interconnection, other modes of travel should be incorporated into the transportation system including bikeways, pedestrian paths and mass transit. Parks, Recreational Amenities, and Open Space - Parks and recreational amenities should become centralized features in the Development Areas and in individual developments. Important environmental features, such as floodplains, critical slopes, and forested areas shown on the County's Open Space Plan, should be protected and preserved as open space. Development should be concentrated and clustered around these features to the maximum extent possible and provide vistas for .public enjoyment. Existing forested areas acting as buffers between subdivisions should be maintained. Neighborhood Centers - A neighborhood center provides a focal point for residents and pedestrians. Centers may be employment hubs, areas of mixed uses, parks, places of worship, or other activity areas, Centers should be recognized and enhanced within neighborhoods. New centers should be built with pedestrian access in mind. ATTACHMENT B Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale - New and redeveloped buildings should be sited and arranged to emphasize a positive relationship between pedestrians and buildings and to provide appropriate spatial enclosure. As a rule, building orientation should be to public streets and to private streets when the private street is in located in front of the building. Yards should be shallow in order to allow for good spatial enclosure. Massing and scale should be appropriate to the area in which buildings are proposed, Attention should be paid to architectural details. Relegated Parking - Parking should be located to the side and rear of structures and generally should not be the dominant feature seen from the public road or other adjacent areas. New development or major redevelopment design plans should include features to prevent impact from impervious surfaces on water quality. Parking areas, roads, and other impervious areas should meet only the reasonable needs of the proposed use and possible future uses. Avoid parking areas which exceed that which is necessary for the anticipated development. For large retail developments, parking capacity needed only on a few peak shopping days of the year is amenable to design alternatives to fiat blacktop. Mixture of Uses --VVhere appropriate, residences can exist side-by-side or within close proximity to shops and places of employment, as well as civic, religious, and cultural institutions. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability--The Development Areas should reflect a vadety of housing types and costs and be provided in a manner consistent with the County's adopted Affordable Housin.q Pplicv (See Section --,of the Comprehensive Plan). Unless a mixture of housing of housing can be found in close proximity to an intill site, new development proposals should offer a variety of housing types for different income levels. The Development Areas are recognized as the most appropriate places in the County for affordable housing. Provision of services to the Development Areas as well as a more compact area for development increases opportunities for use of transit. The Development Areas also offer opportunities for housing to be in close proximity to jobs, shopping, parks,: and public schools. Affordable housing should not be built in "enclaves; rather, it should be incorporated into new housing developments and units should have a similar exterior appearance to other units in the neighborhood. Redevelopment -The County and developers alike should concentrate on redeveloping existing sites where the capacity of development has not been met. Adding second stories to buildings and mixing residential uses with commercial uses make for better urban/rural relationships and can reduce pressure to expand the Development Area boundaries. Adaptive re-use of historic buildings to uses which preserve the building's architecture and site character should be encouraged as a method of histodc preservation. Site Planning that Respects Terrain - New development and redevelopment should reflect sensitivity to existing grades to the greatest extent possible and promote architectural design that fits into grades. Emphasis should be placed on preserving areas of environmental sensitivity shown on the Open Space Plan. Where extensive grading is necessary, site grading should result in slopes that are attractive, functional, ATTACHMENT B easy to maintain, and which promote interconnectivity of parcels. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas -Distinctive boundaries should be made between the Development Areas and the Rural Areas. In most cases, development should abut the rural boundary rather than transition down to it. Fiscal Impact Analyses - The County should continue to consider fiscal impact models and studies when evaluating future land use changes prior to rezoning approvals. Appropriate planning/phasing of development to match service/infrastructure availability and capacity should be established. Specific Standards for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial Land Uses Residential Land Use Standards In addition to the general standards noted above, residential standards are presented here as a basic framework to guide future residential development proposals. It should be recognized that substantial changes in the economy, housing market, and housing industry may warrant flexibility in the application of these standards. These standards are intended to encourage the provision of vadous housing types and provide for affordable housing, It is intended that all dwelling types and forms of ownership be permitted within the County. Residential Densities and Relationships to Other Land Uses The twelve principles of the Neighborhood Model do not speak directly to density; rather they describe the characteristics desired in the physical development of the land. These physical characteristics are expected to enhance opportunities for greater densities. It should be understood that, in the short term, an overall increase in density may or may not occur as a result from the adoption of the Neighborhood Model. However, it is intended that where possible, and practical due to terrain, availability of public utilities and adequate public infrastructure and consistency with the Neighborhood Model, that overall development density, be at as high a level as practical. Provide for. affordable, housine units for Iow and moderate-incom~ families. Set specific tar_(;ets for the development of affordable unit; with Sufficient, flexibility to ,allow, for negotiation based on ,th~ develo ment's size location ti eline and n ture of the surroundin area. At a minimum 15 erce t Of ali units within develo '~t projects should be affordable as defined by ,the County's Office of Housin.q and Housin.q Committee. Encouraqe, the use of the bonus ATTACHMENT B provisions of the Zonin_~ Ordinance to increase density and provide for affordable housing is encouraged. Where demonstrated, by economic or other considerations, that density in excess of that recommended by the Plan is warranted to accommodate an affordable housing proposal, a reasonable density increase should be provided. In rezoning deliberations, the County should be mindful of the intent to encourage infill development, contain most future growth within designated Development Areas, and avoid rural development pressure. Unless contrary to matters of public health and safety, residential rezoning to the upper end of the Comprehensive Plan recommended land use density- ranges (i.e. Neighborhood or Urban scale) should be favored even if the density exceeds that of surrounding developments. Maintenance of the integrity of residential areas can be accomplished with standards for the relationship of residential use to adjacent non-residential uses. Buffering, screening and physical separation of non-residential uses can alleviate such relational problems. The current provisions of the Zoning Ordinance addressing the screening of objectionable features and dissimilar uses provide for appropriate protection. These features should be retained. In addition to these regulatory requirements, care should be taken in residential design to provide for buffering, orientation, and other measures to avoid conflicts with surrounding uses. Identification of appropriate land use relationships is important in applying land use designations as well as in considering development proposals. ATTACHMENT C Affordable Housing Policy (CPA 03-02) Summary of comments received at Focused Group Discussion, Sept. 29, 2003 The following is a summary of the comments received at this meeting. The summary comments are bulleted. VVhere appropriate, staff's responses to the comments are provided in bold. Comments: · Will Rural Preservation Developments (RPD's) be subject to the 15 percent minimum affordable unit standard? RPD's over 20 lots require a Special Use Permit and, therefore, could be evaluated as to how the request meets this recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan. How is it insured that the target market is served--that if affordable units are built they are purchased/rented by Iow-moderate income families? The next step, after adoption of the policy, is to development the programs, processes and mechanisms necessary insure appropriate use these units. Part of that work will be to insure that 1) the units are made available to the target households 2) they remain available over time, and 3) that there is a stream of eligible and ready purchasers when the homes are complete (ready = adequate credit, down payment, etc.) · Is there a mechanism or opportunity to meet the required level of affordable housing by purchasing existing housing stock and committing those units to affordable housing? This may be considered an appropriate alternative way to address this need, but more information would be needed on the specific request. Concern was expressed that the neighborhood model design expectation will negatively impact the ability to provide affordable housing by increasing development cost. Will there be any flexibility in standards/expectations for design for the purpose of forwarding the construction of affordable housing? The Chairman of the Housing Committee stated that this was an issue with both DISC and the Housing Committee and the Housing Committee did anticipate that some reasonable flexibility in applying housing policy and neighborhood model design issues may be appropriate, if necessary, to forward the development of affordable housing. The 15 percent affordable unit standard is another potential exaction incurred by a development proposal in the County that increases development cost, and ultimately the purchase price for housing. It may create more development pressure in other adjacent surrounding Counties and communities. It (the 15 percent req't) arguably creates another disincentive to the rezoning process, potentially leading to more by-right proposals which are less dense and less consistent with new County development objectives. · One attendee noted that the 15 percent amount is a fairly common amount used around the country in affordable housing policies and/or regulations. Will the public sector and non-profits continue to provide for the neediest parts of the population? Yes. The policy contemplates continued public and non-profit efforts to address housing needs in the County. ATTACHMENT C · Numerous questions were raised regarding the "mechanics" (management, procedures, process) of applying the 15 percent minimum in a development review and approval process: -When will the affordable unit price be "defined" or accepted--with approval of ZMA, site plan or plat, Building permit or CO? The financial market (interest rates) can change significantly from ZMA approval to CO issuance, which can affect cost/pricing of housing. This is a concern. -When will the developer get "credit" for the affordable housing units, when rezoned or when built?. -When the units are built, will there be eligible buyers ready to purchase? Having to hold units waiting for eligible buyers to be ready to purchase is a concern. -In general, the management of the program is a concern (how equitable, efficient, responsive it will be in the through the review, approval and implementation processes). -The program will need to strike a balance of being equitable (treating like type of proposals/situations the same) while also providing flexibility to address unique circumstances or opportunities. -It was recommended that if some flexibility may be anticipated in the amount of affordable housing provided or in the expected urban design features of a project, that should be articulated in the land use plan and policy. Staff has recommended adding such language to the proposed text amendment on page 23 of the Land Use Plan. -it would be helpful to identify the relative priority of neighborhood model design features so developers know where there may be some flexibility in expectations that will allow them to better provide for affordable units. The Housing and Planning staffs recognize that the next important step, if the Policy is adopted as proposed, is the work on the "program" management/process issues which will address may of the questions noted above. ATTACHMENT D Albemarle County Planning Commission October 28, 2003 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public heating on Tuesday, October 28, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Room # 241,401 Mclntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Rodney Thomas, Vice-Chairman; Pete Craddock; William Rieley, Chairman; William Finley and Jared Loewenstein. Absent was Bill Edgerton. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mark Graham, Director of Engineering; Elaine Echois, Principal Planner; Margaret Doherty, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Call to Order And Establish Quorum Mr. Rieley called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public Mr. Rietey invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting proceeded. Review of Board of Supervisors Agenda from the Public Mr. Cilimberg summarized the actions of the Board of Supervisors on October 15, 2003 and October 22, 2003. Presentation of Service Award Mr. Cilimberg presented a plaque to Mr. Rieley as a service award for his five years of service with the Planning Commission. He thanked Mr. Rieley for his contributions and wished him the best of luck in continuing his service with the County. Consent Agenda SUB-02-242: Stillhouse, Rid,qe RUral Preservation Development Preliminary Plat - Request to create a Rural Preservation Development of 10 lots, 9 development lots ranging in size from 2 to 5.3 acres and one preservation tract of 40.1 acres. The plat has been revised to show the changes requested by the Planning Commission at their December 17th hearing. (Tax Map 85, Parcels 29A, 29B, 29C, 29D, 29E, 29F, 29G, 51H, 51J, 51K) (Margaret Doherty) ,S, DP 03-0741 SAINT JOHN'S BAPTIST CHURCH SITE PLAN WAIVER: Request for a site plan waiver for a 13,923 S.F. expansion of an existing chumh on 6.1 acres zoned PA, Rural Areas. (Tax Map 66, Parcels 77 & 78) (Yadira Amarante) Mr. Rieley asked if any Commissioner would like to pull any item off the consent agenda for discussion. There being none, he asked for a motion on the consent agenda. Mr. Thomas moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (5:0), (Edgerton - Absent) ATTACHMENT D Public Hearing Items: CPA .-03~3 Affordable Housiin.q, POlicy - This is a proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include an Affordable Housing Policy as a new section of the Plan and to amend other sections of the Plan to reflect this policy. (David Benish) Mr. Benish summarized the staff report, BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission held a work session on August 19, 2003 to discuss the proposed Affordable Housing Policy, The Commission directed staff to move forward to public hearing on the Policy as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. The Commission also requested that staff hold a focus group discussion opportunity to receive comments and answer questions from the interested parties on the proposed Policy prior to the public hearing. DISCUSSION: The initial Affordable Housing Policy, as developed by the Affordable Housing Committee - The committee did hold some focus group discussion opportunities at that point in time, but there has not been one on this final draft. Staff held the focus group discussion on September 19, 2003. There was a total of eight (8) attendees, not including staff and the Chairman of the Housing Committee. They had a good discussion on the policy and the amendments for the Comprehensive Plan. Attachment A is a summary of the comments from that focus group discussion, and responses by staff where appropriate. Most of the comments centered on the overall impact of, and the specific procedures for, applying the recommendation in the Policy that a minimum of 15 percent of ali units in a proposed development be provided as affordable units. Many of the comments tended to be oriented to technical aspects of how this recommendation would be applied/implemented in the development review process. Staff recognizes from these comments that systematic processes and procedures will need to be developed and put in place prior to implementing this recommendation (with the review and approval of development proposals). There was also SOme policy questions about the impact of that. Recommendations were received from the group. If the Policy is adopted with this recommendation, the next step will be for the Housing Office and Planning Department staff to develop these processes/procedures. To summarize where they are to date, staff has recommended two changes to the language for this Policy in the Land Use Plan Text Amendments Since the Commission saw it last. One is in effect, a relatively minor adjustment, but they did add to the Land Use Text an additional sentence to indicate some flexibility in the provision of the 15 percent minimum; but that number was already in the overall policy found on page 2. So that is not new language or any substantive difference from where the policy was before; but it was making the language in the Land Use Text Amendment cOnsistent with what is in the overall policy. The second change was based on State Code requirements that call for affordable housing policies to address the location and geography for where affordable housing should be provided. Staff has provided an amended language to be added to the Policy, which they feel is consistent with our growth management policy. The purpose of the public hearing is to give them an opportunity to hear public comment, but staff will be happy to answer any questions on the changes that they have suggested or comments from the focus group discussion. Ron White from the Housing Office is here to help answer any questions. Mr. Rieley asked if there were any questions for Mr. Benish. ATTACHMENT D Mr. Thomas stated that on the 15 percent minimum on the rezoning, etc., how were they going to keep the price of the property down if you require minimum affordable housing. He asked if they were going to build up the density in those areas Ron White, Chief of Housing, stated that density was one way of doing that. He stated that the Commission would probably agree that within the Neighborhood Model that there may not be much of a way to increase the density given the other principles that are in there. Every project is going to have to be looked at individually. They would hope that the combination of additional density and possibly the use of some alternative unit type such as auxiliary apartments, English basements or granny fiats would help. The alternative unit type could onty be used if the land allows a rental unit. There are a number of things that they could look at to try to create some affordable housing options, but he did not think that it was a surpdse to anyone that it was going to have to be on a development basis. This policy sets out some general guidelines to do that, which was where Mr. Benish mentioned that there is going to have to be some flexibility. Mr. Benish stated that there are units in the market that are actually being built that would meet the threshold that we call for to be defined as Affordable Housing. Sometimes the question would be tO make sure that the units are available to the target market. That was an issue that was raised at the focus group by some of the developers who are actually building units that Could be available for a certain price, but then the market demand and who is purchasing those properties might not be what the target population is. Part of our program may be getting the stream of eligible clients into the units that are already being built. Mr. Finley asked if housing for the elderly was included in the affordable housing policy. Mr. White stated that it was certainly included. Mr. Finley asked if that would also be for a $175,000 house. Mr. White stated that it would depend on whether it was ownership or rental. Obviously, when they are talking about affordable housing, the policy is for all segments of the population and it would be inclusive of rental opportunities as well as home ownership opportunities. The other component that relates to the elderly is the need for services, which is a big-ticket item. When you are talking about the housing side, particularly for assisted living type facilities, this policy does not address anything about services. Mr. Finley asked if affordable housing was subsidized and if so by whom? Mr. White stated that it could be subsidized. Rental may be subsidized with the Rental Assistance Section 8 PrOgram. which is a federal subsidy that they get from HUD and utilize in the County. It could be subsidized through grants available to nonprofit organizations through the state or federal government where they can offer down payment or closing cost assistance. The reality is, when you look at the pdce of houses that are being built now, that there is some level of subsidy that is going to be needed to make any product affordable. When we are talking about $172,000 we are talking about a four person household and a $50,000 annual inCome. To drop down further for example, a schoolteacher with a $30,000 or $35,000 income in a single income family, could afford less than $140,000. Many variables are in affordability such as interest rates. We are in a good interest rate climate now, but it is inCreasing. The higher the interest rate then the lower, or the lesser the amount, of mortgage that people wilt be able to afford. We are dealing with one variable here and that is the supply. There are a number of other market variables that this policy may not touch, but this is a step to at least put in writing what they have been trying to develop over the last couple of years. Mr. Finley asked in Albemarle County what would the median income be, ATTACHMENT D Mr. White stated that 100 percent median income is around $63,000 or $64,000, which would be for a family of four. Mr. Finley asked, to qualify for affordable housing, what is the typical salary range? Mr. White stated that this Policy states that it would be the policy of Albemarle County to seek assistance and provide assistance to those households at or below 80 percent of the area median income. That is the reason that he had used the $50,000 figure. That was roughly 80 percent of the median income for a family of four. Mr. Finley stated that there was a lot of people making it on less than that. Mr. White stated that would include many people, Mr. Thomas asked what the percentage was for the family of four who was making $40,000 per year. Mr. White stated that if it were distributed equally, you would prebabiy be talking about 25 to 30 percent of the population. What they see from looking at the census data is that there is an awful lot of people or a great number or a pretty good percentage of the population between the 0 and 30 percent category. We have a good number with the percentage above the 100 percent category, but when you start talking about whether it is equally distributed that 30 to 80 percent is where it is not quite as even. Mr. Craddock asked him to refresh his memory where the 15 percent came from. Mr. White stated that the 15 percent was the standard that has been used around the nation for various affordable housing programs. He stated that it was mentioned in the work session that the most talked about one was Montgomery County, Maryland, which had about 25 to 26 years of experience doing this. That was a figure that they used. Some of the Housing Committee wanted higher percentages and some wanted it lower at 10 to 12 percent, but the Housing Committee finally concurred that they wanted to put forward the goal of 15 percent, Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for staff. Mr. Loewenstein stated that in the objective section they already talked in the Plan about creating and preserving safe, high quality and sustainable neighborhoods; and that was one of the things that has been added in our draft. In talking about the mixture of housing types and preservation of this policy there is a discussion in here about the preservation of all the existing affordable housing units in our neighborhood as a way of maintaining that balance. He noted that was sort of a question. When it says encourage the preservation of all existing affordable housing units and development of new housing in a manner consistent with the County's growth management policy, etc. What specifically would that be if he were a developer that was looking at that? He stated that if he had a neighborhood that he wanted to redevelop taking the Affordable Housing Policy into account; and he looked at the strategy of the encouragement of all existing affordable housing units, what does that mean exactly? He was interested in part because if they were looking at buildings that were old enough then this abuts with the HP Plan and the Land Use Plan that are in the Comp Plan. He stated that he was trying to get a feel for what that means. Mr. Benish stated, to answer that specific question, he thought that the language that speaks to the flexibility of interpreting the 15 percent would give us the ability to determine the amount of redevelopment and to maintain a certain percentage for retaining those existing dwelling units in some way. Mr. Loewenstein stated that in any case they wanted to maintain the balance. ATTACHMENT D Mr. Benish stated that he thought that the intent here was more in a general approach to have an inventory of affordable housing. They don't want to be encouraging the construction of new housing while they were allowing the elimination of others. The language that you are referring to here was trying to speak very globally. Mr. Loewenstein stated that he knew that was not part of the amendment language. Mr. Benish stated that AHIP had a program that rehabilitates homes in our rural areas, which he thought they were very supportive of because it retains that inventory and that was a very spec'rr'ic program that they would want to support. In terms of a new development, he thought that was where they would have to use flex'~bility and good judgement in the creativity of the development community. They needed to do the dght thing and determine whether it was to retain some of it or redevelop it to something better, but overall to maintain the integrity of the mix. He stated that other policies help to kick that in, which are already in the Comp Plan, which will help address that. Mr. Loewenstein said that the language does point out that it was the mix that they were trying to protect. He stated that in a neighborhood development or redevelopment, that there are other agencies such as AHIP that would be able, under its existing guidelines, to participate in redevelOpment if it was involved. Mr. Benish stated that the potential was there because he was not aware of anything that would preclude that necessarily. Mr. Rieley stated that the Affordable Housing Policy itself says that the County Housing Committee approved it March 2003 and the format was revised in the summer and it was revised again this month. He presumed that all of those revisions were by the Housing Committee. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Benish stated that the only revision that the Housing Committee staff has not been involved with is this latest regarding this geography and they have not had a chance to see that. The Housing Policy should encourage the preservation of all affordable housing units. The Housing staff has seen that, but the Housing Committee has not had a chance to see that. That was something that he was made aware of at the end of last month that was an upcoming change that was going to be necessary as part of this Affordable Housing Policy, He pointed out that they went ahead and tried to address it and get it to the Commission for their input, but they will make sure that the Housing Committee sees it as well. Mr. Loewenstein stated that the last sentence in that particular document says that affordable housing may be provided in the designated rural areas consistent with rural area policy regulations. It seems that AHIP has done a lot of work in those areas. He stated that he just wanted to see what the crossover would be in this case. He noted that it would not go away, because he would be reluctant to'see any abandonment of encouragement to preserve exiSting affordable housing in some areas outside of growth areas as well. There have been some notable successes along those lines and he knew that agencies like AHIP have participated in them, Mr. Benish pointed out that the Habitat for Humanity has as well. In most of those cases, they have used by-right development potential to the extent that by-right development is available. It is irrelevant whether it is affordable housing to us. They are glad that there is affordable housing being provided. Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that has occurred in his neighborhood and it was a good thing. Mr. Rieley asked if there were other questions for staff. He stated that regarding the summary comments in the first one concerning rural preservation developments, as whether they would be ATTACHMENT D subject to the 15 percent of affordable unit standard - the response was because RPD's over 20 lots require a special use permit, but they can be evaluated relative to that recommendation. As a reminder, he stated, that runs out in July of next year. The ones that require special use permits absolutely mn out because that law is no longer allowable because it is unconstitutional or illegal after July 2004. He stated that there should be a mechanism to encourage affordable housing. He asked if them were other questions about this. There being none, he opened the public hearing and asked if there was anybody else who would like to speak on affordable housing. Ann Mallek, resident of Eadysville, stated that she had heard that the durability of affordable housing staying affordable is an issue brought up by developem recently, She pointed out that she had mad something about other places where it was put into the deed restriction that certain income brackets of people am the only ones that could buy this type of a particular property. So she would propose that the staff investigate whether that is doable in Virginia and if that is something that they could use so that affordable housing built in a neighborhood, such as this for example, would remain available to the people who really need them. Ron Keeney, of Keeney and Company Architects, stated that he would like to remind them that all affordable housing is subsidized, Whether we as individuals in the audience pay taxes to the Federal Government who then tums and gives out grants, so Mr. White gets a grant from the Federal Government. We still subsidize it whether we gave it to the State Government or whether we push developers like this to do it. One way or the other it is all coming out of the individuals' pockets of those that are around. So if you have 100 homes in a community and you ask for 3 percent subsidized housing, then the price of the 97 homes just went up a little bit. If you ask for 15 percent, then the other 85 house prices just went up a little bit. However, one way or the other it is all subsidized by the remainder of the community. So them is no magic pool out there that it comes from, but it is coming out of our pockets, and we all have just so much. To me the solution for subsidized housing is to figure out how to keep the costs of the development and the housing itself down, so that they could therefore afford to spend more, to give mom to our fellow people that don't have as much. Mr. Thomas suggested that possibly the pdce of land could come down a little bit too. Mr. Keeney stated that potentially it could. Jeff Wemer stated that he was speaking as a private citizen dght now. He stated that he lived in the city and made a choice to live downtown. He pointed out that he found a house for $142,000. He pointed out that he and his wife do not drive a whole lot and in fact drive very little. Some of that money saved goes into being able to live downtown and have a quality of life. He stated that Mr. Benish has a an excellent point and something that they need to think about is to make sum that housing that is put in an affordable bracket gets to the people who need it. A couple of weeks ago he was talking to a maltorin town and he said that anything under $200,000 in the city that he buys it up as investment pm perry. Therefore, these houses am them, but am these people getting them. Them is a lot of substandard houses in the County, so maybe in lieu of 7 new houses in a subdivision, maybe someone needs 7 new furnaces in a substandard house or 7 new water heaters. Maybe those things need to be matched up so that we don'~ just resolve it by building new houses. Sometimes people already have a house that needs assistance. He stated that he was a little concemed that they have a density bonus that has never been used before. As a builder for 12 years, he gets a kick out of arguments from the development community about whether we build sidewalks if the house is unaffordable. Well if you put in streets and trees, the house is unaffordable.. If you do a grid street, the house is unaffordable. You can~ do smart growth because that would make housing unaffordable. He pointed out that they have already proven in Loundon County unfettered sprawl has not resolved the issue. He stated that they needed to get down to brass tacks hem and be serious. He agreed with what was written hem and thought that it was fine. It uses language like ~encourage" which was great. Again, they already have an ordinance that is not used. When he talked to the director of the realtor ATTACHMENT D association, he did not even know that it was on the books. He had a conversation a few years ago in the DISC meeting when a counter part in the development community said that if he knew anything about construction that he would understand that to .take a foot print of a single-family house and make a duplex or a triplex, would make it unaffordable. The grading costs alone would preclude that from being an affordable house. That is the most ridiculous thing that he had every heard. When he told him that he knew a lot about construction, he whispered to him that he knew what the real problem was, that the lenders are very uncomfortable with mixed-income housing. He asked why he would not say that and why does he keep pointing a finger at streets, trees and concrete sidewalks? Why don't they get down to the facts? He stated that it was time to sit down and put the facts on the table and figure out hew to do it. It is about subsidy. It is about us being a society and making choices. To sit here and smoke screen this issue is a waste of their time. He hoped that they did not come up with another plan language in another ordinance that just sits on the books for another 20 years and never gets used. Bob Hauser, a builder in the area, asked that the Commission be cautious in their actions. He stated that he was a free market person and he championed the free market, Therefore, he was against this type of legislation. His perspective is from someone trying to build homes for 21 years in the community, and certainly, he has built over 1,000 homes. He thought that he had some real life experience to share with them. If they were here talking about this 15 years ago, he would tell them that he would compete against~a gated-community, with a golf course and clubhouse, with 4,000 lots that are selling for $4,000. That community was Lake Monticello, and it ate him up when he tried to produce affordable housing. The notion that Albemarle County has an issue is one that he holds near and dear. He tried to provide those homes, but you can't ignore the regional aspect of the market. The reason people have not taken advantage of an affordable housing ordinance is that product is not what the market wants and is prepared to jump into Fluvanna or Louisa or Madison or Goochland or Greene to get it. No amount of legislation in Albemarle is going to change where the market goes. It is like water. It is going to seek its own level. He cautioned them to fome him as a developer to produce a product that apparently is not good enough to sell to one group, but that he had to find a separate group that may or may not want it. Now his perspective on government is that maybe it doesn't belong in this business. He stated that he comes to work everyday to try to meet a market. He has tough competitors to keep him honest and keep his profit margin in line and he really does wonder if that is something that the government feels that they are equipped to deal with. The Montgomery County example he appreciates, but that has no bearing here because they were situated between two major markets of Washington and Baltimore. Charlottesville, as a city, has a number of homes that are well within an affordable pdce range. Again, the market was going to be very difficult for him as a builder to try to produce in Albemarle County and compete. When that customer in Fluvanna may just lower his price until he gets that customer, that wants 2 acres. He pointed out that he had not studied the ordinance and therefore would rely on the Planning Commission's expertise. He asked them to be deliberate, thorough, and challenge staff to make sure that this was something that will actually accomplish their goal. He asked if they just picked the 15 percent out of the air. He stated that it was difficult for him to understand because he would not figure out the market from week to week and was not sure how they could arrive at a number for however many years. John Stack, a resident of Earlysville, stated that they have his sentiment about what they were talking about because he happens to be on a task force that is studying affordable housing. They have spent several weeks trying to identify the issues. He felt that affordable housing was beyond the scope of the local government. He stated that they were on a slippery slope because next time it might be 20 percent. He asked that they make sure that they know how much it is going to cost the public before they implement the policy and suggested that it be put in the Daily Progress, (See the attached statement from John Stack dated 1/27/03 on affordable housing.) Dave Phillips, CEO of the Charlottesville Area Association of Realtors, stated that as John mentioned they were studying affordable housing in great detail with a task force, There were many people on the task force that included some people from the Piedmont Housing Alliance on down to lenders. He stated that they thought that there was more that could be done on ATTACHMENT D affordable housing. He stated that Albemarle County has little-no affordable housing for the people. He provided information to the Commission on the local market and suggested that they provide for a lot of flexibility and speed to provide fast track approval, (See the attached Price Range Statistics Report submitted by Mr. Phillips.) Josh Goidsmithe stated that he served on the Housing Committee and also was a local developer and a builder. He stated that he had been involved in this process and had been serving on the Housing Committee since August and he saw the Comp Plan Amendment sent forward. He stated that he attended the Focus Group meeting. He stated that this process was incomplete at this point. He would hope this goes to a work session, however, the application was incomplete because the Housing Group never saw the comments that came from the Focus Group. Although, he might not agree with this 15 percent moving forward he accepted the fact that it probably will. In order for it to be successful, he thought that many the details that the Focus Group brought up should be discussed. It would be very well to bdng the Focus Group and some of the people that are going to be providing this housing back to the table to implement those details before this Comp Plan Amendment is moved forward. Nell Williamson stated that he was with the Free Enterprise Forum in Albemarle County. The Housing Committee has worked long and hard on this proposal and some of the questions that were raised by the Focus Group were answered. He stated that he still had some questions and did not have the answers. He was hopeful that the Planning Commission in their deliberations and work sessions could answer these. Question one, was why there was a lack of Affordable Housing in Albemarle County? He stated that they were really looking at land and regulations. The question for the County was, if Affordable Housing is important, would the County consider expanding the growth area to include more land in the development areas? Is the County willing to waive the resident proffers that they have been receiving over the past few rezonings? Such a waiver could lower the cost of a home by anywhere from $3,000 to $4,000. Would the community be willing to accept these trade-offs if it provided more affordable housing? These are not easy questions and there are no easy answers. The costs of regulation are significantly higher in Albemarle County. After this public hearing, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the Subdivision Ordinance. You will be discussing new ways to increase the cost of development by mandating streetscapes throughout the development areas. First they will talk about how the government can mandate affordable housing and then discuss how the government can mandate making housing less affordable. One idea that has come up is could the County develop an affordability impact statement on any regulation that they propose. It seems like a reasonable thing to say okay, this is what is going to happen. Affordable housing is important and this regulation is important and here is the impact that it is going to have. The big question too has been raised. How is affordable housing going to stay affordable? He stated that there were many unanswered questions regarding this policy. He asked that the Commission take this into account before approving this policy. He asked how much tax money the County was willing to give to provide affordable housing. He stated that based on their research any affordable housing plan must include significant density bonuses that work and increase application processing speed. When presented valuable incentives to get the government out of .the way, the market will provide for different levels of need. Mr. Rieley closed the public headng to bring the matter back before the Commission. He stated that the Commission did not necessarily have to take any action tonight because they' basically wanted to hear public comment tonight. He suggested that the Commission have a discussion on these matters and schedule another meeting to deal with this. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the question was, if there was anything in particular that the Commission would like to see addressed before they take this up again. He pointed out that staff was looking for some guidance. Mr. Rieley stated that they have heard many good comments tonight. He pointed out that he felt comfortable sending this ahead with a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. He asked if ATTACHMENT D the Commission would like to forward this on to the Board for a possible hearing date on December 3r~. Mr. Thomas stated that they needed to find a solution to this problem. He stated that he had a problem with the 15 percent. Mr. Finley stated that he had problems because he felt that more jobs should be created so that people could afford to purchase their homes from their own income. He suggested that the County bring more jobs to the area. Mr. White stated that the Housing Committee would meet on November 12~h and this information can be provided to them. He pointed out that he could provide the Committee with whatever information that the Commission desired. He stated that if there was a work session with the Board they would have some of the members of the committee participate in it. He pointed out that there were some state regulations that had to be incorporated into the policy and that he would make sure the committee was aware of them. Mr. Benish stated that staff would make sure that this information gets to the Housing Committee and that their comments will get to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Loewenstein stated that if there was any question about the 15 percent that it would come u p then, but he was not sure it is would. He stated that there was no reason why it couldnl. He stated that he realized that the Housing Committee and the focus group have discussed the point. Mr. Benish stated that staff would be forwarding whatever action the Planning Commission takes tonight to the Housing Committee so that they are aware of it. It might be useful if they have the minutes from this meeting. Mr. Rieley asked that the Housing Committee have the record of the minutes so that Mr. Finley's cencems and others would all make it before them.. Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that explicating how that was arrived at would be a helpful thing. Mr. Benish stated that staff could certainly make an effort to do that. Mr. Rieley asked with those caveats, would someone like to frame a motion? Mr. Loewenstein moved for approval of CPA-03-03 with the proviso that the language in this draft will be looked at again by the Housing Committee and discussed hopefully in a work session by the Board of Supervisors. He asked for input from staff on how to word the motion. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Commission would want to make sure that the Board receives input from the Housing Committee based on what the language is here, what comments were made in the Focus Group's discussion and review of the Planning Commission's minutes of this meeting. He stated that staff would more than likely schedule a work session with the Board atter they have had a chance for the Housing Committee to see that information. Mr. Loewenstein moved to recommend approval of CPA-03-03, Affordable Housing Policy under the conditions just expressed by Mr. Cilimberg. Mr. Craddock seconded the motion. Mr. Rieley stated that the minutes of this meeting will reflect all of the discussion among all of the Commissioners and it will go to the Housing Committee. The motion passed by a vote of (4:1). (Finley - No) (Edgerton -Absent)